Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Steven Crowder, Sam Harris

Episode Date: December 19, 2023

On Piers Morgan Uncensored: Steven Crowder is one of the most influential and controversial conservative personalities online. And he's told his millions of fans that Piers Morgan is a raging free speech hypocrite...As the Israel-Hamas war sparks fears of a decades-long conflict and a radicalised generation, is religion itself the problem? Piers Morgan will discuss with philosopher Sam Harris. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight on Piers Morgan uncensored. Schools must tell parents if their child wants to change gender and children should not be punished for using the wrong pronouns. Why is this outbreak of common sense making front page news? Stephen Crowder is one of the most influential and controversial conservative personalities online. He's told his millions of fans, I'm a raging free speech hypocrite. So tonight, I invite him on to my platform to take him up. And as the Israel-Hamas war sparks fears of a decades-long conflict

and a radicalized generation, is religion itself the biggest problem? I'll talk to philosopher Sam Harris. News building in London. This is Pearce Morgan Uncensored. Good evening, London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored. If your child went to a fight at school, if they were being bullied, if they fell behind in their math class. You probably want to know about that.

It's your right as a parent to know things like that. Most teachers would surely agree. But many British schools think you have no right to know if your child decides to transition to another gender. So much so that the Department for Education today issued detailed guidance for schools, tell them they've got this wrong. A new parent's first approach will advise it in all but the most exceptional cases they should be urgently informed if their child asked to be known as another gender.

The guidance says teachers and pupils should not be pressured into using a child's new pronouns and should not be punished if they get them wrong. All completely sensible. What's extraordinary to me is not this development, is that it all had to be said in the first place. For too long we've made policy, see by fear of causing offence. The consequences of that were laid bare early this year

when that infamous video leaked of a teacher scolding pupils for refusing to accept their classmate was a cat. I just said if they want to identify as a cat or something, then they're like genuinely on that. Then they've gone. Yeah, they're crazy. You were questioning their identity.

I wasn't a question. I was just saying about the gender. I didn't say anything about them. But what did you get this idea from there's only two genders? Gender is not linked to do with the... not linked to the parts that you were born with. Gender is about how you identify. There is actually three large perspectives.

Because you can be born into sex. You can be born with male and female body parts or hormones. In terms of gender, there are lots of genders. If you have a journey or a girl, you have a penis you're born. Yes. But you identify with the gender of the sexual orders that you're born with or you're weird. That's basically what you're saying. Yeah.

Which is really despicable. Despicable. Think about that. Despicable that you would identify as the sex you were born to. Well, those teenagers were smart enough to express a view that any sensible person in the world would agree with. I certainly would. For that, as we just heard, they were branded despicable

and told that you'd go to another school. That's how schools are pandering to a pupil who says they're a cat. We can imagine how they're policing preferred pronouns. In the most part, it's isn't about children identifying as pets, so it must be extremely difficult for any child who's genuinely transgender. to go through that process as such a fragile time in their lives. But that only strengthens the case for involving their parents.

Pandering to Miss Lobby led to the scandal at the Tavistock Clinic. Well, hundreds of kids were given powerful puberty blockers despite having very complex mental health problems. Many of the children were simply gay. Well, yesterday we learned that the Royal Yacht Association has decreed we should say person overboard instead of man overboard, and that prisoners have been routinely referred to as they instead of he or him. prisoners, insisting on their preferred pronouns.

These things matter. If a form of language is imposed on us, it imposes the worldview that goes with it, whether we agree with it or not. It's exactly what we kind of pandering. It leads to schools being scared to tell parents these fundamental things about their children's lives. Well, do you know me now. I've talked to your contributor to Paula Rohn, Adrian, political journalist, Ava Santina, and international editor, Isabel Oakeshaw. Welcome to my dazzling pack.

All right. Paul, I can see you... You can see. Raging to go off of you. Well, I'm intrigued that you've decided to open this really serious and sensitive debate by suggesting that somebody referencing themselves as a cat equates to a child

who is struggling to understand how to identify. Well, you heard me separate the two things. They're too completely... Paul, hang on. Sorry, you heard me separate the two things. I read out, again, reminded people, of the absurdity of a teacher calling children and despicable for saying it was ridiculous

to allow someone to be a cat. And then I said, but it also, there are serious issues involving people who are seriously going through the issue of transgenderism for real, not just a fad of being a cat. And they're different things. They are completely different things.

So don't miss, won't we? But you're opening with that as if it's somehow something to be dismissed and somehow to be treated as a joke. And this is my problem with the guidelines. Not to be taken as a joke, no. Which we have waited five years... Parents being in.

informed about what their children are doing at school is not a joke to me. I'm a father of four kids who've been through school. I want to know. If one of my kids suddenly decided to identify as a cat, I want a phone call from the school. We've waited five years for these guidelines. These guidelines are start off by saying it's about parents being first. We're putting parents first. Yes.

That's wrong, peers. It's not about parents. It's about the child. It's about the vulnerable child. You're a parent, right? Absolutely. Who needs the adults around them to support them. during this difficult period for them.

But the parents must come first. What it doesn't need is for the child who is vulnerable to be told, no, the parent comes first. That's the wrong approach. No, the parent does come first until the child is an adult. So, Paula, if you want your child to be given medicine at school, if you want them just have some cowpull, you have to get permission.

That has to, you have to go through a process. I have to sign a form if I want my child to have cowpoll at school for a headache or a sore throat or whatever. It is, to me, to me, it is negligent and bordering on abusive to allow schools just to honour a child's wishes to be known temporarily as something else without involving the parent. This is where we become confused with being child focused and saying that the child gets everything they want they want. That's not what I'm saying. Being child focused does not mean that everything

the child says is right. But what I'm concerned about is that saying parent first means that anything that the child says is always going to come second to what their parent wants. So do you think parents should be cut out the mood? Let's make this more simpler then. Do you think it's okay for parents to be cut out? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. So they should be involved then? A parent must be involved.

So they should be involved. A parent must be involved. No, no, no, because we're missing out on a really important cog here. So even if the parent agrees that the child would like to use a different set of pronouns, the school does not have to abide by that. It would only be exceptional circumstances where the school actually accepts So at the moment, there'll be loads of a lot of children around the country who'll be going into the Christmas period now, not knowing how they'll be identified when they're going to school in January.

You know what? They get identified as boy or girl. Like the old days. Why do you feel like that? You don't go in and say you call me they like Sam Smith. No. Those days are done. Pierce, you're shouting. Because it's so stupid. You're shouting.

Let's shout about the fact that the criminal stats tell us that hate crime against transgender people have gone up 11% in one year. Over the last five years, it's gone up 186%. So what we need to do... I think that's awful. So what we need to do is prepare... Any hatred towards trans people is awful. But why do you think that there is so much mockery of trans people compared to five, six years ago?

I'll tell you why. Because they are fighting ludicrous battles the trans lobby over things like demanding the right of biological males identifying as trans women to compete in sport against females. And the more of that happened, and then in Scotland, you saw Nicholas Sturgeon lose her job because she was putting biological male rapists into female prisons where they could attack women. What does that have to do?

When this stuff happens, the real victims, actually, the real victims are genuine trans people who just want to have a quiet life, who go through a lot anyway, and they just want a quiet time and to be respected and tolerant by the Southern society. And I want to take care of those people. Rally the troops, rally the conservative troops and say, we're going to fight the next election on the basis of culture wars and trans. It's not a culture war. It's not a culture war.

Sorry. I'm sorry. Paula, I'm sorry. But the issue of biological males competing against biological females is not a culture war. It is an absolute full-front assault on women's rights to fern. And why any woman still defends this nonsense. All of you. It's ridiculous to me.

All of you. We are talking about that. Because it's being dismissed as cultural rules. We're not. We're talking about schools here. And in my opinion, this guidance doesn't actually go anywhere near far and off. What would you like you to say? Can I just talk for one second here? Because I have tried to interject repeatedly and only been taught down.

I don't think it needs to be guidance. I think it needs to be the actual law. I do not think schools should have a huge amount of discretion, or indeed any discretion over this. And by the way, this is only a. consultation. So we've waited all these months, it's years, it's certainly nine months since Rishi Sunat

called for urgent action and it's only a consultation. Look, for me, this is very straightforward. I do not think children should be encouraged to take decisions that they may come to regret very dreadfully. A lot of this stuff is not... As we saw it at the Tavah stop

fitting, right, Ava. But these are the arguments that were used against children in the 80s and the 90s when we were talking about whether children could be gay. We were talking about that. It's exactly the same sort of rhetoric. And remember, Isabel, we're talking about social transition. Being gay is a sexuality. Identifying as a cat is not a sexuality.

No, come on. You know that that is a false equipment. We've just done that. We discussed how we were not going to equate that. We weren't going to use the cat analogy with this very serious discussion. At the moment, we've got a murder trial going on, you know, potentially because of a trans child died. All right, you know, and we're talking about bullying. But there have also been murder trials this year of trans people killing people. So it works both ways.

No, no, come on. Because, okay, we can't talk about that specific case, but let's be serious. You can take out individual stories. Of course you can. And amplify them. No, if a child was bullied. But I think both of those are horrific for different reasons. So what's the point?

But trans murderers do not represent trans people. But if a child was killed because they are trans, then that is pretty important. What's that got to do with the school with you? If the school is got to do. If the school is bullying, then obviously that is allowing that's not going to change bullying. Yes, it is. I don't see how it's going to change bullying.

Of course it is. We know how. we know how important schools are. Of course, they are the locust parenti, aren't they, for our children. When we send them off in the morning, we know that. And so what's really important, of course, is that the school has guidelines. But what happens is... Rules, not guidelines.

And do you know what? That is where I would agree with you on. Because at the moment, we don't have anything watertight. It's very fluid. We have this consultation period. It's 12 weeks. It's a little bit convenient that they suddenly sent out these guidelines when most schools have broken up,

when most schools are coming to the end of their holidays. So what they think that they're going to get back? I don't know what's going on, Paula. There are no doubt there are some children genuinely going through transgenderism, right? They believe they're born in the wrong body, and they have to be taken care of, cared for, respected and everything. I totally support that. But there are a very, very small number of people.

What has happened in the last two to three years, there's been an explosion in the media. In people identifying as non-binary, gender fluid, 100 other genders. Because it's trendy. It's a fad. And teachers have been introduced into going along with this and not telling parents. And it's completely outrageous.

But my family are teachers, my friends are teachers, and I spoke to them before I came on this programme, and I said, do you have transgender children at your school? And they said, yes. I said, do you use their pronouns? They all said yes. And I told them about this new guidance. And I said, well, that's unworkable.

And why would we do that to a child? How many have they got? How many transgenital? Very small, each. Tiny. But probably one to each person. Right. Now what about the people identifying as non-binary gender

fluid, blah, blah, blah, blah. But so what? There was one school in Brighton where there were 1,000 pupils, I think there was something like 300 identifying as non-binary or gender fluid. I don't think it is a so-what. I'm sorry, I don't think it is a so-what. I think that when people start having actual surgery

to change their bodies in ways that it's not reversible, that isn't a shrug-shunds-so-war. But we're not talking about surgery. We're not talking about... The Tavis-Clock Clinic was created on the altar of virtue-signalling nonsense and children were being mutilated at that altar, and it's completely outrageous what was going on there. That's very different to people using pronouns in schools.

Well, it's a slippery slope, isn't it? Once you start to acquiesce kids wanting the rights to everything, and they rule the roost, and they have the final say. Their rights to be comfortable in their own body. Parenthoodle rights should be absolutely paramount. Now, there is an exception. There is a genuine belief based on teacher knowledge, social services, maybe, whatever,

of violence towards a child who may say, something like that when they go home. That is different. And that's been allowed for in this. No, it hasn't. No, this guidance specifically says as well, even if it's agreed by the parents and by the school, the school will not take it on. No, but there's a specific criteria for kids who may be at risk, right? Teachers will be able to withhold information if they believe a child could be put

at a significant risk. So it's in there. But they weren't unusual. Can I just tell you, that isn't unusual. In terms of safeguarding, that's quite normal. Teachers are always very careful to ensure that the child comes first and if there is a concern about risk of harm, significant harm, then they will, of course, do what they need to do in terms of contacting the appropriate professionals

to ensure that the child is cared for first before the parent finds out. That's not unusual. What my concern is, is exactly what you've just been amplifying, this parental right over the child right. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Until they're legal adults, the parent has the right. That's our job. Sorry. This is why I'm glad we're actually having this debate and this place is needed and the consultation. period is required. But what we should not be doing is adding flames to this culture war because it's not a culture war. You are doing that. And now it's about our children. We've had Kenny Badenov's saying that there is no child born in the wrong body. How can you tell me that this is a culture war? If you had your way, Paul, if you had your way, you'd have kids, young girls at school,

I've got a 12 year old daughter, right? You'd have her up against six foot five inch biological males in sport. Oh come. You'd have having to share the toilets where, the bathroom, where, and bathrooms with biological males. This is an un-attractive argument from you. You'd have a bunch of her friends identifying as cats. And you know what it is? It is licensed chaos. And actually bordering on abuse.

I think it is bordering on abuse. I think that we will look back on this era in future as a period in which we allowed our... We actually encouraged children to become incredibly confused. And it is terrible for mental health. To keep projecting all this. Oh, you might be this, you might be that. Look, the vast, vast majority of people...

are either a boy or a girl. And they don't need their mind befuddled with a load. And what we don't need is that people like Sam Smith who start off as a gay man, a year later he's non-binary, then he wants to be called they-them, then he wants to be gender fluid, blah, blah, blah, blah. It is just fadism. Is it? Yes.

By the way, let's not forget that this fight. By the way, let's not forget that this year, thanks to him and his campaign, he demanded the Britta Walls go gender neutral. And what happened in the best individual singer category? They're all blocs, the nominees. Look, all men. On page one of that guidance, it questions whether gender dysphoria

is even legitimate. It questions whether, you know, someone can be born into the wrong body. Maybe more questions should be asked. They're simply going, I'm actually, I'm a girl, I'm a boy when you're not. But no one's splitting like that. They are.

They are. They are. They are. Because millions of kids are doing it. Because they're all chasing a fad. It's just like in my 70s when David Bowie put makeup on, they all wore makeup. Kids do that.

Anyways. Kids also are committing suicide peers. Yes, some are. It's very sad. Our self-harming peers. I don't deny that. And so we need to address this. And it's really important they get.

And not come across as if we know best. Because so many kids are being encouraged to identify as anything they're like, the ones you really need help are getting lost in the wash. So you accept that there are ones that really need help. Yes. So do I. I said that. So do I.

All right. I'm glad you all agreed. Nice to see you all. Uncensored next. Am I a free speech hypocrite? Well, I don't think we've shown that just now. Steve Crowder has told his millions of followers that I am, and he joins me next because I believe in free speech.

Welcome back to Uncensored. Last week, I criticized Elon Musk's decision to allow the massacre-denying conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to return to X, formerly Twitter. Some people weren't happy. They included the influential conservative personality, Stephen Crowder. This is what he had to say on his show, Louder with Crowder, about me.

This brings us to Pierce Morgan's, rules for me. He hosted Alex Jones on his very own program this year. Pierce Morgan doesn't understand what freedom of speech is. Pierce Morgan has also hosted

Sahel Shaheen, the Taliban spokesperson. Jeez. Wahedah Sifshida and Islamist extremist leader. Jeremy Corbyn, the anti-Semitic Labor Party leader. Just, just Pierce, stop. I'm sorry. Fraud. Fraud. Fraud. Fraud. There we go.

Well, in the spirit of hosting very controversial people on my free speech platform, I'm now joined by Stephen Crowder, who can call me a free speech hypocrite to my face. Mr. Crowder, good day to you. How are you? Well, thank you, Pierce, Merry Christmas. And let me say off the bat, I do actually appreciate about you. Your audience may not know how rare this is, that you do these interviews live, you don't chop them up, you actually have a discussion, and I've been advocating for that my whole life. So really, I appreciate it.

Those are steps in the right direction. Well, they are. And to be honest with you, the debate. about what constitutes free speech and whether there should be limits and if there should be what they are, I think is really interesting. And a lot of people have strong opinions about this.

And I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong or to at least have a debate with someone who's got strong views that don't necessarily tally with mine. So I welcome you to the program. Let's start with your assessment that I'm a free speech hypocrite. So articulate to me why you believe that. I believe the word I used there was

was fraud. You earlier used hypocrite. Did I release? Okay, I don't remember saying it, but I'll take your word for it, and to some degree, I believe it. Look, I think that in hosting a show uncensored, and I can't see you, but I know you put up the very festive holly leaf on the globe there, it is incumbent upon you. You will say,

I believe in the concept of free speech. Now, I'll be very clear in my definition of free speech. It's the constitutional definition of freedom of speech. All speech is permissible outside of a crime, and we have very clear parameters, and these have been affirmed by the Supreme Court, as to what that is. That's a proactive call for violence. The crime is not the speech. The crime is the action causing violence on purpose. Outside of that, everything is permissible. But for a show uncensored, and I know that you've said there's a difference between across the

pond there, and obviously in the United States, we have a First Amendment that you don't. How would you define freedom of speech? What is permissible? See, I don't think we're as far apart as you think. I mean, you talk about the First Amendment not protecting, for example, crime. It's a little bit more complicated. For example, it doesn't protect you if you deliberately defame somebody. My argument about Alex Jones in particular was he's just been punished with over a billion dollar fine in one of the biggest defamation cases in modern American history for deliberately telling lies about the families of the poor victims of the Sandy Hook massacre over a sustained period of time,

which led to them getting direct harassment and other criminal activity. So I was joining all the dots there of his particular situation, and I concurred with Elon Musk's original view when he was asked about it when he first bought Twitter last year, which was he was not going to allow him back on. He's now changed his mind, but my opinion was based on the Constitution of the United States, not protecting you if you are guilty of defamation.

Well, okay, so I'm going to have to take the rounds out of that magazine from how loaded that question was and so much misinformation there. And that's the beauty of the freedom of speech. You can say that. You can speak misinformation and you have the right to, for example, saying he knowingly lied. Look, I'm not in the business of defending everything that Alex Jones, everything that Alex Jones has said, okay? But if you're going to say the 22 minutes out of 8,000 hours of broadcast time, for which he apologized, acknowledged that he was wrong. constitutes what you are saying is proactively lying. That is a very dangerous president.

And it's not accurate. It's not accurate. He did deliberately lie for a sustained period of time for years about these families. He knew, sadly, he knew that. He deliberately lied. And he was found to have deliberately lied. Tell me how he deliberately lied. And by the way, in his defense, he tried to play the First Amendment card, and it was rejected by the judge.

rejected. Tell me how he deliberately lied, please. Because he knew that it wasn't a hoax. He knew the massacre had happened. Incorrect. This isn't what he said. That's incorrect. Let's play what he said. It's got inside job written all over it. Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn't believe it at first. People just instinctively know that there's a lot of fraud going on. But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake.

Whole thing was fake, repeatedly. A series of different shows he did. You still have an answer. That doesn't prove that he knowingly lied anything. Look, Alex Jones is wrong about a lot. You're a very smart. But he's also a friend. Stephen, you and I disagree.

Hang on. I'm going to respond to you. You and I disagree about many things. We agree about many too. Right? I appreciate it. On this point, you're a very smart guy. I wouldn't question it for a moment.

You and I both know Alex Jones knew that that was not faked, Sandy Hook. You and I both know that. So I have to split the words out that you just tried to place in my mouth. I do not know that. I don't agree with the premise. And you have yet to prove it. Here's the beauty, though. I don't have to prove it.

Even if you were to commit defamation, even if, no, it didn't. And assuming if you don't discuss the cast with your audience, and I'm going to continue speaking as though we're having a dialogue, even assuming that you don't discuss the caps that he would never pay out, the far lower settlement that they have decided they would allow, considering this will go to a superior court

and will get thrown out, even if you allow all of those things, here's the beauty of the First Amendment. Here's the beauty of the First Amendment. Even if you at one point commit defamation, you still don't forfeit your right to speak going forward. You don't lose a fundamental human right. I agree.

And that's not why it was banned from Twitter. I know that. He was banned for Twitter of having a pop at some guy from CNN. I don't care about that. I'm more interested in why Elon Musk tweeted when he bought Twitter and was asked, will he bring back Alex Jones?

He said, no, I won't allow somebody back on having gone through the pain himself of a child dying in his own arms, one of his children. He wasn't going to allow someone who profited from the pain of dead children to be back on the platform. He then changed his mind, which he's allowed to do. He owns the platform.

X is a private company owned by Elon Musk. He could do what he likes with it. But they also have a series of rules, which are available on their website, which you can check about what is allowed and not allowed. And they will depatform you if you transgress those rules. And my point to you is that the situation with Alex Jones is that he was found guilty in an American court of defamation.

And yes, it's entirely down to Elon Musk that he can bring him back, but I agree with the first version of Elon Musk decision-making, not the second one based on a completely undemocratic poll he put on his own Twitter feed. Well, I agree with you that it shouldn't be left to a Democratic poll because the First Amendment is not subject to a vote. Right, right. But you accept the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

has a number of things which are excluded from protection, whether it's child pornography, fraud, defamation. There's a whole list of things which you'll simply... But that has nothing to do with speech. No, no, but you're confating to... I think you've mischaracterized what I said then because I've never said he hasn't got a right to say what he wants. You can say what he likes.

I believe fundamentally in anyone's right to say whatever they want. The question is accountability. And the US Constitution, which you don't think I know anything about, but actually I know a lot about. I didn't say you don't know anything about it. I really don't believe that. I know that you have studied it. In another quick from that same show you did, you've basically said, I don't know much about

the US Constitution because I'm not American. And that's fine. But I have lived and worked in America over 20 years. I have tried to really get a handle on the U.S. Constitution. And on the issue of the First Amendment, it is a complicated. you think it's not as simple as saying you can say whatever you want. Well, it is because it doesn't allow the unfettered free speech with protection that you're suggesting it does.

It doesn't. It absolutely does. Barring, would you like me to explain, barring what I've already outlined, actual criminal behavior calling for violence against other people. For example, Pierce, look. But including defamation. And I'm saying this in your defense, for example, you made your joke about being a two-spirited penguin, right?

I thought it was cute. I think it was funny. And I understand the point that you were trying to make. You have had people accuse you of creating violence against trans. You know that, and we know it's absurd. So who defines what is actually calling for violence or if you basically in a roundabout way, maybe causing violence? No, unless you called for violence.

No, but you keep saying that you were a two-spirited anger. But you keep saying that your only barrier on free speech is crime. And I keep reminding you that Alex Jones was found guilty of defamation, and that is one of the things that's not protected by the First Amendment. No, it's not protected in a sip. You can have civil damages, and your First Amendment rights don't cease to exist. In other words, you can pay. You can pay the Piper for what you have done in that individual instance.

So if someone, at some point, if someone accuses you of defamation, and let's say has a suit levied against you that actually by God is successful, let's say that, does that forbid you from speaking publicly thereafter? No, you don't lose it. It's a fundamental human right. Not at all, but it does allow I'm exercising my rights to free speech to say, I think he shouldn't be allowed back on X, which was the position of the owner of X until last week.

So my point is that Elon Musk has made two judgment calls about this. One, I agreed with and one I didn't. And I'm exercising my free speech rights to say I don't agree with it. You are, you are. And I completely support your right to that. The problem is Elon Musk changed his mind in the face of new information. And if we want to have productive dialogues,

we need to allow... You know what, this is one thing I often ask. And by the way, I think... none of this is a gotcha for Twitter clicks. I hope to God it's not. How often when you were on CNN or how often when you're on your morning show there in the UK? Or how often do you see on any news network someone say, you know what? New information came out and I was wrong. And I say that because you've done it and I appreciate it. You said, you know what? If I knew what I know what I know now about the COVID vaccine, specifically that if you get the COVID vaccine, you cannot

transmit it. Yeah. If I knew that that was incorrect, I wouldn't have espoused the views that I did. I think that's a beautiful thing. And I think the problem that we have in today's society is not wanting to allow people to be wrong, to make mistakes. In the realm of comedy, look, good jokes and bad jokes come from the same place. Sometimes you have to risk something, and it's not funny. Sometimes you have to express an opinion.

Yeah, but I agree with you about all that. Sure. I agree with that. I tell you, that's really the bedrock of this show. But I come back again to why I had a particular issue with the Alex Jones thing, is unlike the other circumstances you're describing, in his case, he was found guilty of a serious defamation against the Sandy Hook families. He was fined over a billion dollars.

So far, he's not paid a dime of that money. And, you know, Elon Musk has made two calls on it. Like I said, the first one I agreed with. I don't think that people like Alex Jones should be allowed an unchallenged, unfettered public platform to spew lies which are done deliberately, in my estimation, Dispute life? Unchallenged?

Are you out of your tree, sir? Have you been on X? It's a cesspool. No, no. People can reply to him, but no one can have a direct challenge to Alex Jones. Like I did when he came on my show. Of course I can. Look, like you picked out, for example, that he came on my show, Jeremy Corbyn, Taliban, spokesman and so on.

Yes, because in each of those cases, I put them through the minceau, right? And I'm prepared to have them on to give them a hard time and challenge him. You might agree to disagree with that. but they're all pretty volatile interviews. But I was able to challenge what I perceived to be their untruth. I'll show you a clip of the Corbyn one to show you what I mean. Have a look at this. You seem to be over-concerned with...

With Amity Semitism? No, no, I did not. I am. Should I must stay in power? You're done yet? It's actually a critical question. Are you done yet? No, it's the question.

Are you done yet? Should they stay in power? Are you done yet? This country says they're a terror group. Do you agree and should they stay in power? Listen, I do not approve, support or welcome. Welcome Hamas. Are you prepared to call Hamas a terror group?

Is it possible of a rational discussion with you? Is it possible? Come on. Answer that question. You can't, can you? You answer it. No. It's my show.

You answer my question. Now, the point of playing that clip, other than to entertain you, as I'm sure it did, is that, yes. I hate everything about that clip. Why do you hate it? I hate it because I don't like Jeremy Corbyn, but I think he's a bombastic prick, but I also think that you should have let him finish speaking. Why? Because then he would express bad ideas.

That's why I support freedom was speech. But actually, in the end, I could tell very quickly he was never going to give an answer, and therefore we were in a game of cat and mouse, which went on so long that the viewer was left in no uncertain terms what his answer actually was. Because otherwise, you just say Hamas or a terror group. It's not difficult. And in fact, two days later, he admitted Hamasor a terror group.

That was his position. But only after I shamed him into doing it. David Duke, the former KKK leader, he's banned from Twitter. Elon Musk hasn't brought him back. Should he be allowed to be back on X? Throw that at me. Really? You just say, I want to ask someone a straight question.

You have me here. I'm basically a specter. I don't appear on anyone. You want to ask me about David Duke? Yes. Because he's banned from Twitter. Should David Duke be allowed back on X? Yes.

I'm not as familiar with David Duke as I am with Alex, which is why I was able to point out that you cannot prove that he knowingly lied about anything. If David Duke has called for the violence, look, if David Duke has called for the violence, actions of violence against minority groups, then no. If David Duke has espoused horrible points of view that can be refuted, by the way, not only by other people who are on X, but by the community notes on X,

and on a platform where people are free to speak on both sides of the aisle, then yes, it doesn't mean that I think he's anything other than a racist prick. So I'm trying to look at with you. Can I make one point? Yeah. Can I make one point that I think is very... This is really, and hopefully we can agree on this, because I actually disagree with you

that Elon Musk can do whatever he wants with his own platform. It comes down to this. I think, and if you look at the historical record, I think it is far more dangerous for society to engage in a culture of censorship, a viewpoint discrimination, than it is to allow people to speak freely,

barring the committing of violent crimes. I think that we see a far worse, a far worse dystopia in our future if we allow the government and these big tech platforms, to determine who can speak and who cannot. And we've seen some very clear examples of this. If you give me 30 seconds, let me lay this out for you.

For example, I don't think they have the right to, for example, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, here's why. They benefit from Section 230. Now, I know you have a lot of fans in UK. They may not be familiar with this. Let me explain what it means. They're basically treated like public utilities, meaning that they have immunity from liability

for someone saying something on their platform. For example, AT&T here in the States can't ban you from their phone service because your racist Aunt Tilly drops an end bomb after a few drinks at Thanksgiving. They're a public utility. These big tech platforms are treated as platforms where they are not legally liable for what is permitted.

But that allows them to engage in viewpoint discrimination. And then there is no accountability. For example, the Hunter Biden laptop story, which we know. And this is why I make all references publicly available because I want to be held to account and I will be held to account, would have changed the election.

If the government was not, and when I say colluding, I mean, Joe Biden, Jen Saki, Kamala Harris, Karen Jomp here, calling for the removal of Joe Rogan from Spotify, calling for the removal of vaccine scientists, by the way, of MRNA vaccine scientists from public platforms. If all information was allowed to be transmitted freely, like the platforms, as they are treated under our legal precedent here and Section 230, guess what? Donald Trump would be president. I'm saying this is a matter of record, in fact. Millions of people would not

have gotten the mRNA vaccine, specifically men. under 30 and lockdowns would have lasted days, weeks, not years. That is irrefutable, but you had the government and these platforms deciding which views were allowed and which views weren't. And I don't think I should be allowed. You should be allowed. And certainly not the government colluding with five companies who control over 90% of the information in the digital sphere.

It is terrifying to me. So you may think I'm an absolutist. I think I'm reasonable. No, no. I actually don't think that's unreasonable at all. In fact, I have written numerous columns about the outrage of the New York Post having that initial expose of Hunter Biden's laptop censored by Twitter as it was then for two weeks right before the 2020 election.

I've said to Donald Trump to his face, never mind the storm election bullshit you keep trying to pretend happened. I said, focus on that because that probably swung the election because it stopped the media investigating properly what was going on with Hunter Biden in New York. Ukraine and what his father's involvement would be. I think that could have won the election. So I absolutely agree with you.

Let me give you a funny story about it. Not only could it, it would have, according to Dr. Epstein, do you realize? Now, I'm a comedian, right? This show, that's why I appreciate you. You said, hey, you got a chuckle from our segment. Some of it is tongue-in-cheek. And I appreciate that you recognize that and not try and use, you know, you acknowledge that it's a joke, whether it's funny or not.

So as a comedian, the host of a comedy show, Rudy Giuliani was on this show. and the first time the public ever saw Hunter Biden's laptop was on this show. He brought it up. He goes, I have the laptop here. The FBI came to thirt my offices. They took everything, but the lap. I go, wait, wait, wait.

Is that the Hunter Biden laptop? He said yes. Episode is banned. Suspended from YouTube. Think about that. Think about how terrifying it is. It was an accident. It's wrong.

It's wrong. Let me ask you, though, yesterday on your show, you appeared wearing a T-shirt saying Alex Jones was right, changed my mind. So my question is, what was he right about?

Oh, gosh, how much time do you have? Are you talking about Sandy Hook? No, I'm not talking about Sandy Hook. He said he was wrong about Sandy Hook. Right. He apologized for Sandy Hook. When he was sued, he said he was wrong. But I'm saying, obviously, the shirt wouldn't be addressing that.

If he says I was wrong, it would be awfully daft to me to wear a shirt saying. What are you all right about something? I'm alluding to, for crying out if you talk about intelligence agencies spying on Americans, if you talk about what we've done with South American countries, as allowing the spread of STDs for which Hillary Clinton apologized. for if you talk about nation building where there have been underhanded deals with nations who don't have our best interests at heart. I mean, it's, you know, take your pick. I don't believe that, for example, George W. Bush was next to the Twin Towers with an Acme plunger. No, I'm not that kind of a conspiracy

theorist. But when Alex Jones said, look, you are going to be corralled into social media ghettos and lose your right to speak, he was right. He's right about a lot. And I will say this. He's been wrong about plenty. I am not here to defend everything that Alex Jones has ever said, I'm willing to defend everything that I have said on my program. But that man is exactly who you would expect him to be. He's a friend of mine. And when everyone else tucked tail and they ran, I'm not going to do that. I'll tell him he's wrong. I'll tell you where I think he's wrong. But that man has a right to speak. Just like I believe you have the right to speak. And Pierce, if you think they're not going to come for you, oh my word, do you have another thing coming? And I hope

that you don't. I genuinely hope that you don't. I mean, I've had people say that I was a hate speaker because I said soccer was gay. I do. I think so. You think soccer's gay? Homosexual, yes. You know what? That's a whole other debate, Stephen Crowder. Let's have a debate about whether soccer is gay. And if it is, by the way, I would be happy to embrace its homosexual side.

Well, I know you would. I know you would. But with that accent, you have to be careful. People take you seriously. I think it's great. I think it's great if you're a six-year-old girl or a homosexual from Greece, to quote Nick DiPaula. Yeah, you know the difference in our football. on your football, we don't wear helmets to protect

ourselves. We're real men over here. You also don't allow contact. We're real men over here. There's no great padding or, you know, great shoulder pads and helmets. We just get stuck into each other. And that's a difference. Americans like to wear helmets and carry guns. We just use these guns.

But that's a whole other debate as well. Stephen Crowder, I've got to leave you there. It's been a good debate. I've actually enjoyed the tone of this debate. I think it's a really interesting area, free speech. I think ultimately we agree about more things with free speech than we disagree. But let's keep the debate going. Thank you for joining me. Merry Christmas, Pierce. I appreciate it. Angie, all the best. Uncensor next is the Israel-Hamas war sparks fears of a decades-long conflict and a radicalized generation. Is religion itself the biggest

problem? Plus philosopher Sam Harris is with me to give his take. Welcome back to Unsense. And I'm joined now by Sam Harris, one of the world's great thinkers. Sam, I know you were listening to that debate I just had about free speech. Where do you sit on on that? And in particular, particular, Elon Musk's reversal of his decision to keep Alex Jones off the platform X. Well, I think we're pretty confused on this particular point. I think much that is said about free speech, especially in America, doesn't really have to do with free speech when you're talking about these platforms. For instance, these platforms have to be moderated. It's never a question.

It's never been a question of anything like, quote, free speech absolutism on these platforms. If they're not moderated, if you're not cleaning up some of the toxicity, X or Facebook or any of these other mainstream platforms would be like 4chan or 8chan, right? I mean, it would just be a completely sociopathic free-for-all. Nobody wants that. Nobody would tolerate that. Certainly advertisers wouldn't spend any money to be next to that. So as much as people call him a free speech absolutist and he even calls himself that, That's never been in the cards, and he's banned people, as you know, for a wide variety of idiosyncratic reasons.

And then he's brought Alex Jones back saying that he would never do that. And I think it's a mistake. I think Alex Jones is a genuinely bad actor. I think he monetized the misery of the Sandy Hook parent in a way that's truly unconscionable and unforgivable. And while he says he's apologized, he hasn't quite apologized for that, at least not in my hearing. You know, so he's, he's, yeah, I just think, I think once you admit that these, even these public companies are platforms that are not analogous to the public square, right? They have to, you can't simply use the First Amendment in the U.S. and say anything that's legal can be said here, right? Because then it's just, it becomes a business that is guaranteed to fail. So they're businesses, right? And I think Elon should...

I also think that the, you know, hearing Stephen Crowder try to say that, well, you know, for all we know, you implied Alex Jones would have believed that Sandy Hook was fake. Nobody thinks that. Alex Jones knew it wasn't staged. Stephen Crowder knows that Alex Jones knew it wasn't staged. We all do. He deliberately flew with that conspiracy theory to generate vast amounts of wealth for himself. Several hundred million dollars.

came off the back purely of the reaction to that conspiracy theory. That's why he did it. So there's a disingenuousness at the heart of that of people who defend him over whether he believed it on. No one with the brain thinks he believed it. There are Sandy Hook parents that have moved 10 times since he went berserk in their direction, right? And he knew his fans.

Very early on, he knew what the consequences of his actions were, whatever he believed. Yeah, they were being harassed in the street. One poor man said at one of the cases, that his son's grave have been urinated on as a direct result of what Alex Jones was saying on air. And that just made me want to cry, actually.

It was just horrific. Let's tell him to why you actually came on tonight. We had an interesting debate last night involving several people. One was Mossab Sam Yuseb. He's the son of one of the Hamas co-founders who then renounced Hamas and moved away. And he said this about what's going on at the moment

in the Israel Gaza Wars. Take a listen. Any person who put the religious identity above the highest interest of humanity, I have no respect for this people. The majority of the Muslim people identified with Hamas, supported Hamas. Show me how many Muslims out there who condemned Hamas genocide. What was interesting about that is that he was really suggesting that the motivating factor behind what Hamas did and why people are supported them in such big numbers.

in the Muslim community is because they're Muslims. It's religion-driven. Now, you're an atheist, but what do you think of this idea that it's actually really about religion? We have a vast number of people in the Muslim community worldwide, not just in the occupied territories or in Gaza,

who are powerfully deranged by religious symbols and their religious identity, which is to say it is the most important thing to them. more important even than the deaths of their own children, right? We're talking about a culture, again, I'm not talking about just Palestinians, I'm talking about the Muslim community worldwide in dozens of countries that has produced a seemingly unending supply of suicide bombers over the last 50 years, right? We're talking about societies where phenomenon that should be impossible

are simply to be expected. I mean, literally like rigging children to explode. Just that, I mean, to think of how deranging that is for an army or a police force or an NGO or anyone to have to imagine that a child isn't simply a child, but a child might, in fact, under certain circumstances, be a bomb, right? I mean, that is the situation we're in. We're talking about a society, and now I'm talking about the Gaza and the West Bank in particular, where in their schools, they teach six-year-olds, the love of martyrdom, the literal aspiration to die as a martyr. and the hatred of Jews. And many of these schools are UN funded, right? So this is a terrifying situation which the world has simply acquiesced to.

I mean, the world on some level has simply accepted that there is a different standard held to the Muslim community, right? We all understand that you can stage a play making fun of Mormonism on Broadway and it can become the biggest musical in the United States, the book of Mormon. But to stage of such a play about,

Islam would be unthinkable, and to be unthinkable, not because the First Amendment doesn't protect the freedom of speech with respect to Islam, it does, but that protection has been forfeited, it was forfeited long ago because of the tendency in the Muslim community to erupt with just psychopathic rage in response to what it perceives to be the desecration of religious symbols. And that should be intolerable to us, but it's, you know, we have acquiesced to it. And the new norm is, there are certain things you can't say about Islam, there are certain symbols you can't introduce. And it's because we know that tens of thousands,

even hundreds of thousands of people will march into the streets, even in the capitals of Europe. Some people would say that the scale, the disproportionate as many see its scale, of Israel's response, is motivated in some part, again, by a religious motivation, that some of the more hardline,

ultra-religious members of Nihahu's cabinet really do want to have some kind of genocidal war with the Muslim Palestinians. I mean, does it work both ways? Well, it does work both ways when you're talking about a tiny minority of Jews in Israel. I mean, the ultra-Orthodox, the settlers who, the minority of settlers

who are motivated by their religious fanaticism, yeah, I think those those, Those religious claims upon real estate in the Middle East are not justified, and they aren't, in fact, part of the problem. And so, yes, the settlements in the West Bank are certainly provocative, and they, you know, they should be disallowed, right? If we were ever going to get to a two-state solution, part of the remedy there is to disenfranchise the religious maniacs on the Israeli side.

Sam Harris, great to talk to you. Again, I really appreciate you coming on and speaking with such a reality. about a complex issue. Thank you very much. Well, that's it from me. Whatever you're up to. Keep it uncensored. Good night.