The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Censorship, Twitter and Andrew Doyle

Episode Date: December 16, 2022

Andrew Doyle is a comedian, writer and broadcaster. He is the host of “Free Speech Nation”, a weekly television show on GB News. He has written two books under the guise of his satirical character Titania McGrath: “Woke: A Guide to Social Justice” and “My First Little Book of Intersectional Activism”. He is the author of “Free Speech and Why It Matters” and “The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World”. Andrew is the co-founder of Comedy Unleashed, a stand-up night in London. 

This is Live from the Table, a Comedy Cellar-affiliated podcast coming at you on SiriusXM 99. Raw Dog. Yes, indeed. And the Laugh Button Podcast Network. This is Dan Natterman, along with Noam Dwarman, the owner, the proprietor. Hello. He's in a mood today, folks. Of the world-famous Comedy Cellar.

We have with us also Periel Ashenbranch. She is our producer and the term producer. She produces a new hit animated series called Stupid, S-T-O-O-P-I-D. It's an animated series. By the way, she calls it Stupid at the Comedy Cellar.

We should discuss that. But go ahead. That wasn't authorized, but go ahead, go ahead, go ahead. It wasn't? Well, a lot of people use the Comedy Cellar name for various things.

Dave Jeskow has a podcast, I believe. That's authorized. That's authorized. Okay. And of course, there is also Nicole Lyons, who is a behind-the-scenes woman. Do you use the name Comedy Cellar or anything you do properly, Nicole? I don't think so. I keep it under the radar.

She is a wizard. Sound is not an easy thing. People have told me that sound is really, really tricky, even more so than video. Yeah, sound is tricky. But she does video also. Is your Twitter handle NicoleComedyCellarLions? No, I'm going to lock that down, though.

She's funny. Do you do stand-up, Nicole? Nope. Not a bit. No, Nicole, well, she's very shy, and we know that because I often will ask her questions on air. We should ask this about Peril. It just occurred to me.

Why did you use the name Comedy Cellar? I didn't. It's stupid at the cellar. It's on the stoop. It says Comedy Cellar. It's a drawing of the background. What do you think? I'm like trying to like exploit the name for,

in like an unauthorized way? What are you getting at? You know what, Periel? I don't know what the right answer there is because it would almost like, because I always make fun of you. Yeah. Like it would be like, no, you, no, you're probably not trying to use the name Comedy Cellar. It probably didn't occur to you that that might be helpful to you.

So go ahead. No, but it's literally on the stoop, right? Yes, but there's a reason you use the Comedy Cellar stoop, because the Comedy Cellar has some name value, and because a lot of, you know, well-known comics work here. So the Comedy Cellar backdrop

is important to the project. Yes, of course. But it's also, it was taped here. No, it says stupid at the Comedy Cellar. Where? On your YouTube description.

Oh, yes. Okay. Oh, you meant that. Well, it is at the Comedy Cellar, though. Stupid at On your YouTube description. Oh, yes. Okay. Oh, you meant that. Well, it is at the comedy seller, though. Stupid at the comedy seller. So what should it say? I should say stupid is a new bite-sized

talk show style. That's right. Set on the stupid of the world famous comedy. The reason this came to my attention is because everybody's everybody's like complimenting me on my new show

oh well that's great it is your new show I mean it's no it is not okay well you were on episode one I mean

from what I understand that according to you is the best episode there is it is the best one but I'm saying that people people think it is a comedy seller production. Okay. Well, it kind of is a comedy seller

production. Oh, no. It is not a comedy seller production. I mean, it was produced at... It was produced here. No. No. No. Okay. And in the real estate? Is that what you mean? No. I mean, as the setting. Yes. That doesn't make it a comedy cellar production.

Okay. No more than if I produce porn in Washington Square Park, it's a New York City production. Do you want me to change the name? I'm just not really sure what you're getting at. Nicole, you want to take this? I'll pass. Well, she was authorized to use the location.

Yes. So that, if not implicitly, that somewhat implicitly. No, she was authorized to use the stoop. And you knew. The stoop. Yeah. I think you knew that the Comedy Cellar name would be in there somewhere since she's using. I never knew it would be called Stupid at the Cellar or Stupid at the Comedy Cellar.

I never knew that. No, I didn't. Well, I think, I hate to say that you should have known because it's filmed here and it's using all of your comics. They're not my comics. They're comics. The reason they're here is because of you. That's right. That's why you do it here.

But that's different than putting it into the name of the thing. Well, I think you should have predicted it. Do you want me to change it? No, it's okay. Oh my God. I'll allow it. How about this? Yeah. If we sell it, you're part of it.

No, no, no. No? Don't Kanye West me into this thing. I'm not interested. Oh my God, that is so rude. I'm not sure what he meant by that. I'm not sure what he meant by that either. Don't try to appeal to my pecuniary interests.

I'm not. I'm saying I feel like to use something in an unauthorized way would be to be sneaky about it or I shot something here without telling you, and then use the name. If somebody says to me, can I do some interviews with comedians on the stoop of the 117 McDougal Street? And I say yes. I don't realize when I do that, that I'm authorizing the name comedy seller into the title of their project. I think you should have predicted that possibility.

Yeah. I didn't think about it. You should be one step ahead. It didn't even occur to me. I mean, again, if you'd like me to change it. I mean,

the stoop of the comedy seller is the whole selling point is that this stoop is sort of, if not famous, it's, it's iconic in a certain way. Yeah, that was the whole point of the show. It was sort of the point of the show. Well, it wasn't sort of the point.

I thought the point of the show was the comedians. Well. Yeah, but the stoop at the comedy seller and the comedians both together. And the comedians from the comedy seller. Nicole, you sure you want to take this one? Actually, I do because the title isn't stupid at the Comedy Cellar. That's just the social titles, right, Perrielle? The actual title is just...

Distinction without a difference. I mean, social is pretty important. Yeah, but the series title is just stupid, no? Yeah, the series title is stupid. But then it says, at Stupid at the Cellar, and the description is stupid, but then it says, except that, the title in the description is stupid at but then it says, except that the title in the description

is stupid at the comedy seller. Or on the stoop of the world famous comedy seller. Is that? Well, anyway, no. I think, I don't know what that noise is, but I think. Yeah, set on the stoop of the world famous comedy cellar. Well, that's different.

I'm looking at the YouTube description. I guess your branding is a little ad hoc. If there's something you want me to change, tell me and I'll change it. No, I think I'm okay with it. It's just because I say I'm okay with it, it doesn't undermine my point. Go ahead. Before we get to Andrew Doyle, who is coming in a bit, we can discuss the fusion breakthrough, if it is a breakthrough, or Perry El's recent show at Stand Up New York.

Noam, you pick the topic. Um, the fusion breakthrough and Perry El's show. Okay, well, first we'll do the fusion breakthrough. Okay. Well, apparently, for the first time in history, I'm no physicist, but they succeeded in creating more energy from a fusion reaction

than the energy that was required to ignite the fusion reaction. Now perioles show. Okay, so I guess that's it. I'm kidding. But I'm told that um even nicole laughed at that i'm told there's a little more to it than that the the the overall it was still they used more energy but no that is what it is but they have

but they have to scale it up i heard some outrageous number they have to bring the temperature to like 180 000 hotter than the sun that. It's like literally hotter than the sun. They have to, they bombard this little pellet of, I guess, hydrogen with laser beams and eventually it fuses. The hydrogen fuses into helium, I guess, and then energy is released. But anyway, this is supposed to be an important step, but still maybe decades away from a workable fusion reaction. It's still amazing. It's still...

Well, I don't know what to make of this, because I remember like 20, 30 years ago, they were saying, oh, cold fusion. They were talking about cold fusion. This is hot for you. I'm going to curb my enthusiasm, because oftentimes they will make these sorts of announcements and and uh and we'll see where it goes but obviously fusion would be a big deal and i think thank god it happened in america thank god maybe that's a maybe that's a little over the top to say but i well, this certainly makes up for Trump. And and I've been a lot of the anti-American sentiment will be washed away if we can pull this off. I've been I've been fearing for a while the day when the tomorrow will no longer happen in America. You know, this was something that I had thought about years ago when I was talking about running for Senate back then.

And, you know, like we didn't want to go to the moon anymore. And I remember saying, like, you think you don't want to go or to other planets. So you think we don't want to do that until China does it. And then all of a sudden we realized, oh, shit, we're not the country that does it anymore. So I was very, very're not the country that does it anymore. So I was very, very pleased about the RNA vaccines coming from America.

And I'm very, very pleased that this fusion thing is coming from America. It's important for our, like, we don't have a nationality. We have a pride in our system and everything. This brings us together as a people. We need things like this. Well, like I said, we're still, it sounds like we're still a long way off. And I'm sure people from all around the world will probably, just like the internet, I think the internet kind of got started here, but there were contributions. Thank God for Al Gore.

Al Gore. Yes, he did. There were contributions from elsewhere. So this is probably going to end up being a global project when all is said and done. If it comes to fruition, when it comes to fruition, we're talking about fusion, and we're just saying we're cautiously optimistic

that maybe this is going somewhere. Oh, you want to introduce him for us, Dan? Should I put this on? But he's English, so he's not quite as perhaps thrilled with... Well, the fusion story. The fusion story happening in America. Isn't it the biggest story ever, effectively? It means it will completely revolutionize and change the world.

That's my understanding. Ostensibly, yeah. Yeah, okay, well, that's bound to be a good thing, right? Well, I was saying in my own ethocentric, piggish American way that I'm very happy happened in America. And I was very happy that the RNA vaccine came from America that I've been fearing for a long time that day when the future would no longer happen in the United States, that would start happening in China or something.

And I thought that'd be very damaging for the collective psychology of our country, that we need that more than other countries need these things. You depend on national pride. Yeah. Yeah, I think you very much do. But it's also a reminder, isn't it, to have faith in the capacity for humans to develop technology to deal with our problems.

I think people forget that all the time. And when we talk about climate disaster and climate catastrophe, we forget that we will develop ways to cope with it. I'm with you. Hopefully. Of course, one day we will probably destroy ourselves. Probably. With any luck, that day is not will be dead is not is not soon

andrew doyle is a comedian writer broadcaster host of free speech nation a weekly television show on gb news has written two books under the guise of his satirical character titania mcgrath woke a guide to social justice and my first little book of intersectional activism i would like to add that uh one of your biggest fans is a dear friend of the comedy cell. He's a man by the name of Louis Schaefer. I don't know if you've heard the name. I work a lot with Louis.

Okay, well, he said to me, oh, your Andrew Dawes is coming on. Wow. He was very happy. Yeah, Louis is great. Well, Louis is often on my show in London. Okay. Louis was here just a few months ago

visiting with his children. He wanted them to see the land of their forefathers. Yeah, of course. I've met his children. And so anyway, so welcome, Andrew Doyle or Titania McGrath, your alter ego. But also Jimmy Carr is a big friend of the comedian Jimmy Carr. He was a good friend of the comedy cell. You know he emailed me.

Were you cc'd on that email? Yes, yes, yes, yes. And Brendan O'Neill. That's Brendan O'Neill, who's a... I haven't heard from him in a while. No, well, he's now... He was the editor of Spiked, but he's now... He's still writing for Spiked, but he's no longer the editor. But yeah, he's a friend of mine.

A lot of like-minded people. Yeah, yeah. It's nice to have that sort of... So did you... I was looking at something. Did you read... Did you introduce his book? I certainly did. Which one is this? There's three of them, I think. Which you read, did you introduce his book? I certainly did

Which one is this? There's three of them I think Which is the most recent one? The New Puritans? Yeah, the new book is called The New Puritans Oh, I didn't read that one, The New Puritans Which is a serious book, so that's not a satirical book That's a book about what we call the critical social justice movement The woke movement, whatever

Now, are you wearing a suit because you came from somewhere? You're going somewhere? I'm massively overdressed. Or you're just overdressed. No, I'm going somewhere tonight. So a friend of mine is taking me to some posh dinner at the Manhattan Institute. I didn't know what that is. That's why I have to dress like this. But I never

wear this sort of thing. I'm very partial to Paisley. I think that's... The tie is Paisley. The suit is black which, depending on what blog you read, is either a do or a don't. Well, this only happened, I had to go to a posh dinner a few weeks ago, and I don't have a suit. So I had to run into a shop and get a suit within half an hour.

So it was literally picked the only one that fit me. And that happened to be a black one. So that's what you're getting tonight. It's sharp. Yeah. Well, yeah. So, you know, I shouldn't even apologize for it, because I think it's good to make an effort. Now, before we get into the politics and everything, I have a question for you.

You do stand-up comedy. I do, yeah. How come you have any interest in performing at the Cellar? Yeah, of course I do. You haven't mentioned it, or nobody mentioned it. Well, I guess I just, you know, because I'm only here for a few days, and I'm sort of packing all this stuff in, and I didn't want to mess people around if I couldn't do it. And you perform both as Andrew Doyle

and as Titania, right? No, I write scripts for Titania and an actress performs those. Ah, okay. I don't drag up. Okay, so... I haven't got the shape. But I, no, I do stand up as myself.

You stand up? Yeah, yeah. So I know it's like quite British, but so I don't know how that would work. But I'm certainly ready to give it a whirl if you want to. What? To do stand-up here? Sure.

Oh, yeah, I'd love to. Of course. How long are you in town for? I'm in town tonight and tomorrow night, and then I'm off Friday morning. So maybe tomorrow night. Well, okay, maybe tomorrow night. What's that?

I'm saying it's a little tight, but, you know, if he can fit it in, sure. Yeah, so tomorrow night I've got, the only thing I'm doing is the book launch from half six to half eight, but then I'm done. Oh, so we'll communicate. Which I believe translates to 6.30 to 8.30. Yeah, yeah.

Oh yeah, exactly. Everything's different. Separated by a common language is the old song. I do. Will you be nervous to go on at the Cellar? No, I mean, I've only performed stand-up in America once. That was in LA. That was at Rob Schneider's show.

And that's the only time I've done it in LA. And all I did was change some of the references that I knew would not translate here. And it seemed to still work. It seemed to still work. So, you know, that's what I would do. This is the problem with being offended by a joke, right? We've all got different boundaries. We've all got different triggers, right?

Like, I'll give you an example of this. This is a good example. My friend Paul, for instance he he was once mugged in manchester so now he can't watch coronation street that's his trigger that's his the accent sets him up that's his boundary right and like i've got a similar thing i once broke my arm because i slipped and fell into a pile of horse excrement. So now I can't listen to you too. So for instance, there are certain celebrity figures in the UK that don't, people just wouldn't know here.

Dame Edna Everidge, for example. You presumably know Dame Edna. Well, very few of us do. And a couple of serial killers who I knew you wouldn't know, so I changed their names as well. Yeah. But it's doable. It's doable.

Okay. Yeah. So let's get to it. You are a, I don't know, are you a free speech absolutist? I would say so, yeah. And you've been trumpeting this for quite a few years now. Yeah. And do you feel that the world is slowly coming around?

I hope so. To your point of i hope so to your point of view what is your point of view my point of view is that uh you know freedom of speech is the seedbed of all of our freedoms all other freedoms emanate from that and if we don't and i also feel that it's not something we can take for granted once it's secured so you know society i mean our society is really unusual in that we have freedom of speech that's not the norm it's secured. So, you know, society, I mean, our society is really unusual in that we have freedom of speech. That's not the norm. It's not the norm throughout history and it's not the norm in the world today. So the idea that we should take it for granted and then allow this sort of gradual erosion of those liberties is terrifying to me. And I think you need to kind of fight and make the case for freedom of speech in every successive generation. You can't just say we've got it now and it's going to be here forever. You have to keep convincing people of the reasons why it's

important. And there are all sorts of ways in which I think freedom of speech is under threat today, often from people who consider themselves to be liberals and progressive. For instance. For instance. But it's not just them. You know, it also comes from the right. It's a nonpartisan issue and it shouldn't, you know, nowadays, I mean, what's happening more and more, which I find quite, you know, chilling, is that freedom of speech as a concept

is being associated with being on the right and that to me just goes to show that maybe certain prominent figures on the left have allowed this principle to slip away and they have in a sense gifted it uh to the right and it shouldn't be that it should be something that we can all agree on that we can all speak our mind without fear of prosecution do you think the the opponents of freedom of speech come mainly from the left these days? I think they do. I mean, most of the people who are currently trying to advocate for a modification of the First Amendment would call themselves left-wing. They're saying that free speech should not encapsulate hate speech. They think they want to carve out these

exceptions for what they call hate speech, because no one knows what that means. And what it will mean is whoever's in power gets to decide what is beyond the pale. What is now, and in the United States we have a First Amendment, which explicitly says freedom of speech will not be infringed. What's the tradition in England? There's no such... We don't have a written constitution. We don't have that. We didn't write it down. You didn't write it down, but where is it?

Is it just sort of part of the fabric of... Yeah, well, our constitution works in the way that it's uncodified, but it works on legal precedents, things that have gone before, which means that continually the judiciary and parliament have to interpret and come to a conclusion about what our constitution says about free speech. We do have free speech up to a point, but in the UK, we do have hate speech laws enshrined in certain laws. So for instance, there is a law called the 2003 Communications Act, which stipulates that if you post something online that is grossly offensive, you can go to jail for that. But grossly offensive could mean anything depending on who you talk to. Is anybody in doing time in jail for the, what kind of things did they say? Well, there's roughly... For a start, there's roughly 3,000 people a year arrested under that law in the UK.

Not all of those goes to trial and not all of those result in punishment, of course. But sometimes it's jokes. There was one guy who went to joke... He made a joke about Madeleine McCann online, which was a joke that wasn't his. He just poached it from another website. He went to jail, I think, for three months.

That blows my mind. We have no concept. Madeleine McCann, isn't she a little girl from Spain? She was kidnapped, and it was a very sensitive issue. Portugal, no? Yeah, it was in Portugal. Obviously, it was very upsetting and, you know, it's good knowledge. Good Madeleine McCann knowledge.

But it was a kid. It was just some working-class teenager who posted a joke, and the police... Well, there were loads of examples. So, conceivably, that joke that louis ck made about that the parkland girl yes was it a girl he made joke about was he saying parkland shooting he made me one of the one of the uh children yeah but anyway in england he could have gone to jail for that joke yeah they tend not to go after comedians interestingly but but they could theoretically i mean that's a good example of, they're bought into the idea that jokes can normalize hate and spread hate. The Louis C.K. example is a good one, because when that audio got leaked, the Independent newspaper, which is a UK newspaper,

the headline was, Louis C.K. mocks victims of school shooting. Or, you know, it it completely misunderstood it took it completely at face value and of course that's the mindset of the judiciary and the police and and they think that if you make a joke about a murdered girl you are in some weird way endorsing the act or let me give you another example so um there was a horrible tragedy in london grenfell tower you might have heard there was a tower block in london and there was a fire and uh the police and the services basically told people to stay inside uh which was a mistake because they all burned to death oh and then someone created a model a cardboard model of the tower and put

little figures painted and burnt it on their bonfire in their garden filmed it made jokes laughed so a sick kind of distasteful joke. We can all agree on that. Okay. Actual prison time. So actual was prosecuted because it was so offensive. So normally what happens with these jokes, comedians get left alone on the whole. And then people who make jokes themselves and post it online can get end up in court. You know, it's insane. Everyone's a comedian with the advent of tick tock.

Right. You know, I mean, literally Of course, everyone's a comedian with the advent of TikTok. Right. You know, I mean, literally everybody's trying to be funny now. And why should comedians haven't got a monopoly on humor? Well, I wish they would. As I believe it was John D. Rockefeller had said, the only kinds of competition I hate are foreign and domestic. Well, I'm with you 100%. I've had this fight with comedians. Well, they'll be judging someone.

But I'm a comedian. I can say this. What is that, like a degree, a certificate or something? Anybody can tell a joke. Yeah, humor is kind of essential to being a human being, right? So it's very weird to me that that happens. Well, what's upsetting is that some people that aren't comedians seem to be doing it quite well.

They do. That's upsetting to comedians. That's quite upsetting. Oh, I mean, this mean this is you know digress but I've always noticed in my life as the owner

of the comedy cellar who's kind of funny that if I would say something funny at the comedian table yeah there are two types of comedians

there are some comedians who will generously laugh because it's funny yeah and some comedians who will not laugh because as if to admit that someone

who's not a comedian can be funny would detract from their own self-worth. They don't laugh at each other either, though. Or they don't in the UK. Or sometimes they fake laugh at each other. Oh, okay. They'll slam their thighs. Ha, ha, ha, ha.

Oh, there's that. Yeah, okay, I've seen that. But a lot of my experience, when I was doing the open mic circuit years ago in London, and sometimes you get those, there would only be three or four people in the pub. And so most of the audience were other comics waiting to go on.

And they were the worst audiences. Because if you do well, if you do a good gag, they're sitting there thinking, oh, I wish I'd have done that. Or I would have done it differently or that kind of thing. But it's not just humor, by the way. I should say there was a girl in England who got prosecuted in court. So take it to court teenager,

because she quoted some rap lyrics, which had racial epithets within the lyrics. N word. Yeah. Yeah. And then she put that on Instagram and she was doing it as a tribute to a dead friend. A boy had been run over and it was his favorite song.

So she put the lyrics online, but she ended up in court and got an ankle tag. She had on her electronic tag. And so it's funny because the rapper didn't get in trouble for that, but, but she did. Is the N word in in England does it have quite the same power

that it does in the United States I mean you don't have the same history that we do of course but yeah I think well it's yes I think it's the taboo word it's it's pretty much got the same and it was their slavery that is actually they're more responsible for it than we are in a sense because we had to grapple with it after we

chased them out but they instituted it, not us. Well, the British. Yeah. But the British also ended it, of course, over there. Well, they ended it in Canada, which was still part of their, which is why the slaves,

the Underground Railroad ended in Canada. Yeah, the Royal Navy spent over 100 years ending the transatlantic slave trade and actually, you know, blocking ships, physically blocking,

and the UK went into masses of debt doing so. We've only got out of that debt about 10 years ago, 15 years ago. So it's been a major campaign, the UK, and the abolitionists of people like Wilberforce. I don't know my history on this. I just know that, you know, the American slave system was set up on the British.

All of your, or most of your, of your African descended population came voluntarily, is that correct? Mostly during the 60s and the Windrush generation, you know, from the Commonwealth and countries like that. And of course, the UK government was actively seeking migrants. It was saying, you know, we have a depleting workforce and we want people to come from the colonies and the Commonwealth, welcome them in. And of course, those people did experience a great degree of racism because the country wasn't used to that kind of diversity. Things are a whole lot better now, you know?

But do you think that racial tension in England is less because that history is not the same history that we have? I think it's different because you had a society where slaves were here. We had a situation where we were enabling and profiting from slave trading, but the slaves didn't end up working in the UK. And that's the big sort of difference i i think there's something else and then i want to

get back to the to the free speech i think that i noticed this when i was in israel um a couple weeks ago the world is getting so small yeah that the entire world is reacting to the n-word in the same way because we're just becoming one group. Years ago, I would go to Israel and it was like going to a foreign country. Now I get there is Netflix and Amazon and everybody knows the same references. It's really becoming one world. And I think these cultural exports

are just very, very powerful. I don't think it matters so much what the history is. I think people are just adopting these views. One woke world. Ooh, that could be the title of your next book. One woke world. That's nice. So getting back to the free speech.

It's got a certain ring to it. So we couldn't have you on at a better time. What is your take on the whole Twitter, Elon Musk, Twitter files, the importance of Twitter, tech censorship as opposed to private censorship, all of it? Okay. I think in the digital world, social media platforms are the de facto public square and are incredibly important because this is where these major conversations take place. I mean, every sort of media commentator and political figure is on Twitter. This is where this stuff happens. And when you have big tech colluding with politicians to decide what can and cannot be seen, when you have them suppressing an article of one of the

oldest newspapers in America, that's a big deal. I think it is a big deal. And I think it's really great, actually, that Elon Musk has, you know, done this, come in and said, we're going to have free speech on the platform. And it's going to be messy and it's not going to be perfect, but it's going to be better than having a group of sort of 20 somethings in Silicon Valley getting to decide what newspaper articles I can read or what tweets I can read. And, you know, I think it was a terrible situation for a long time. And I don't understand why people are pretending that Elon Musk is turning it into some sort of fascist hell site. It's not the case. Yeah, I have a lot of complicated or, you know, maybe contradictory views about the whole Twitter thing.

First of all, Elon Musk, he's not helping his own case by tweeting out, like, really, you know, flippant... He's having fun with it. He tweeted, i saw recently something that was he tweeted uh my pronouns are prosecute yeah prosecute fauci and that and he implied that uh um paul pelosi wasn't actually attacked you know this kind of stuff is not

stuff which is not on firm ground including the including even the lab leak thing and the lying about gain of function research, which I think could likely be true. But he doesn't know that it's true. You can't be calling for his prosecution, you know? But I guess part of the point is that people should be free to tweet stupid things, things that aren't necessarily true. And, you know, if you believe in free speech, then you believe in that as well.

No, I'm just saying, yeah, I agree with you. He can say whatever he wants. I'm just saying he's not really helping. I don't think it's smart strategy for him to become a troll. At the same time, he's trying to... No, I agree. Strategically, it's unsound. Yeah, yeah, that's all I'm saying.

But what I would say is, you know, from what I can see, all that's really happened to the platform is that a lot of people who got kicked off for no good reason have now come back. And there is a broader range of opinions now being expressed on the platform he has got rid of a lot of child pornography and child trafficking he's really made an effort there and that was something that twitter just didn't do anything about for years so

as far as i could see there's no reason to get upset about it elton john tweeting about how he's he's leaving the platform because of all the disinformation but what is he talking about i don't know what he's talking about there and and neither does he, I don't think. Nobody knows. No, I mean, they just sort of go along with the narrative. I kind of did agree, and I know Constantine Kissin is the last name? Yeah. Yeah, disagrees. I kind of did agree with Sam Harris that Twitter is a private company,

and they can do what they want. I say that because when you own a company and you make these decisions, you presume that every decision in some way goes towards the bottom line. And if you tell somebody they can't make a decision that they think is better for their own bottom line, if the government says that, then the government kind of has an obligation to step in and pay your bills. Like, you know, you want me to let this, but I'm telling you, I'm going to lose my advertisers if I do that. So now what are you going to do for me? So I think that complicates it.

But on the other hand, Twitter shouldn't be lying about everything that they did. If Twitter was honest and saying, yeah, we make these policies up ad hoc and blah, blah, blah, everything that we share. And by the way, we meet with the FBI every week. The criticism would be so withering that that would be enough to make them change their behavior. The combination of being a private company and this lying about what they were actually doing is I think what is so repulsive. And by the way, it could even be legally actionable. There's a concept of detrimental reliance.

Like when people are, I mean, I know they're not paying for it, but they are relying on Twitter's claim that they're going to be treated in a certain even-handed way. And I imagine you could come up with some legal action. Well, I assumed you were honest, so I opted to do something here as opposed to – and I lost money or whatever it is. And I'm suing you now because companies are often held liable for lying. Twitter was lying. Absolutely. If Twitter charged five cents for the right to be on Twitter, there would definitely be lawsuits now, right?

Absolutely. Because then they'd be responsible for their terms of service. And I think that's what people are upset about, is the fact that they were not transparent. You know, they had these terms of service that didn't mean anything. They were so nebulous. And they were routinely censoring people they disagreed with politically, and that's the bottom line.

And that's not acceptable. And I take your point about being a private company, but when you have, I mean, we do have antitrust laws when small groups of companies have significant power in any particular industry. You know, the social media landscape is dominated by people who are in ideological lockstep, multibillion dollar corporations. So there is a case to come in and intervene. Well, the trust might be Amazon Web Services, the Apple Store and the Play Store, which come together and seem to prevent Parler or any other... They kicked Parler off, right?

So they kept saying, build your own platform. They did, but we're not going to let you use your own platform. So it is a problem. And when they have political intrigue, when they're so closely connected with one political party, then it becomes a problem. It's a huge problem. So what I think is the overall problem, and by the way, you know, what's interesting is that

there's this, Twitter is much less important than people make it out to be. The people who use Twitter think it's the be all end all. But I mean, Tucker Carlson will go on Fox News and spread vaccine, quote unquote, disinformation and misinformation to millions of people all at once that Twitter would never let on its site. And nobody can do a thing about it, and we survive it, right? I mean, there's a fear of things being wrong, and I think this is a real problem. I just mean that we're so worried that somebody will tweet something not true and 10,000 people will see it. Well, so what if they do? If

someone's putting out information that's not correct, then provide better information. Right, I agree. But the fear that this matters when we know that on the news the same piece of information will be disseminated to millions and millions of people.

How can you possibly claim that this matters? Well, what is it? Something like 20% of people are on Twitter and something like 1% of those people are responsible for 10% of all the tweets. So it is, yeah. But like I say, it's all those people in the media and the politics and the opinion formers

and all that kind of thing. So that's why it does. And it's so arrogant, right? They're not worried about themselves reading the misinformation. Yeah. They're worried about the deplorables. That's what it's all about. They're worried about the masses.

The masses are these sort of the great unwashed. You know, they can't be controlled. It's the same logic as we've got a group called the BBFC, which decide on the film certificates, you know, when a new movie comes out. They used to censor bits. They used to take bits out. And that's just a group of people, upper middle class people,

sitting in their office saying, we can handle these films. We can handle the public. It's about mistrust of the public, mistrust of the people. And let me tell you what I think. See if you agree with me. The big fear to me

is that what they're doing is stigmatizing the whole idea of free speech. It's not so much that Twitter is, Twitter's censorship actually affects the public conversation. It really doesn't. We all knew about Hunter Biden's lie. It's all out there.

What they're doing is normalizing the idea that we shouldn't be having free conversations. And that will metastasize eventually to pressure on the First Amendment. And like when I was a kid, it was routine to see Nazis on talk shows and to talk about whatever you wanted. And now you're really not supposed to do that. And the most influential cultural elites are all signing up on the idea that it's dangerous to have free conversations. Not

on Twitter. This is, Twitter is what we can control right now. But once we clean up Twitter, I mean, the logic demands we then seek to control it in a wider scope. Otherwise what are we doing? So that's a really important point because actually it does matter what happens on Twitter because let's take, for instance, when you have an ideology that not just captures social media, but also captures the media, then actually these sort of avenues become really important.

So like if you take that gender critical feminists, women who believe that there are differences between men and women, they've been banned routinely from Twitter for a number of years now. They haven't been able to raise their concerns about gender identity ideology and have those conversations. And the media, the BBC, ITV, all of the major TV stations weren't talking about it.

So Twitter was the only possible place where they could have spoken about it, but they were having their accounts deleted and censored. So actually it does matter what Twitter lets you say and what they don't. All right, fair enough. I don't know as much about it as you do. But in the overall, I'm much more worried about this. Like I said, it used to be liberals had, I mean, people are worried about a Nazi tweet. Yeah. Liberals used to be the ones who were fighting for the right of Nazis to march.

And not anywhere, march in a Jewish neighborhood. This was what liberals believed. And now they're freaking out about some tweet. Right. I mean, you've got the ACLU defending Nazis to march in Skokie, and then now the ACLU has a lawyer, Chase Stranger, who works for them saying that he's going to die on the hill of banning Abigail Schreier's book.

By the way, for our English listeners, Skokie, think Stamford Hill. Is that right? Isn't that where the Jews live? Oh, I don't know. That's actually, I don't know. You don't even know where the Jews live in London? Or you're not from London? I'm not from London originally, but I didn't know that there was.

I thought it was Stamford Hill because Gina Yashire talks about it. Oh, maybe. I mean, I'm sure she's right. Gold is Green is a place where there's a high. Gold is Green is another it. Oh, maybe. I mean, I'm sure she's right. Gold is green is a place where there's a high... Gold is green is another one. Yeah, yeah. Now, and, you know, there's a counterfactual that I worried about or I thought about it that, you know, with all the problems with Trump...

Yeah. If he... If, starting with Obama, they could have turned the Supreme Court to the left rather than to the right. And what would have been the consequence to free speech? You know, a liberal Supreme Court might very well have started to curtail some of these free speech rules that we take for granted. Yeah. And that, you know, if that were the actual counterfactual, I would say everything we've been through up until now has been worth it to avoid that. I think, and in order to avoid that kind of thing, I think there needs to be

a movement within the left to reclaim the primacy of free speech. It's just not there, because when left-wing people do it, they get accused of colluding with the right. We talk about incitation to violence as a a limit on free speech are there any other limits that you can think of that that are necessary well even with incitement to violence i think the threshold has to be very high and i think you know in the u.s you've got the brandenburg test so it's it's a very high threshold you know by no means did trump violate that kill dan kill him now right it would have to be that yeah but in that even wouldn't work because you know we're not going to kill him are we i mean you would have to be a demagogue at a rally with lots of armed people,

deliberately pointing someone saying you must kill them now. And yet that would just about meet the threshold for incitement to violence. So it's a very, very high threshold. That would be, yes, that would. But no, I don't think there should be limits on speech at all. What kind of limits did you have in mind? Well, I don't know if I had anything in mind. I thought maybe you had something.

Well, I have the legal limits. But if I own Twitter, you're not going to believe I'm going to say this. If I own Twitter, I don't think I would allow misgendering. I would allow conversations about the entire issue without any question

whatsoever. You could argue all about, I should be able to misgender because there's nothing to be added by the right to publicly hurt somebody intentionally in front of millions of people. Even if they can block you, your friends see it. That's a very dangerous precedent. I know. Because any kind of language can be hurtful to someone.

Any kind of serious conversation. You would also ban racial slurs, then, along the same line of thinking. Certain ad hominem attacks directed at a person. Listen, any standard eventually has close calls, and somebody has to make a call. But I don't, as opposed to censoring of any conversation about anything,

which I think Twitter should allow, about anything, I don't have the same sympathy for people who want to call my daughter fat and ugly on Twitter. I just don't have that. But misgendering, for a start, is not necessarily intended to hurt. Most people use he and she pronouns, gendered pronouns, to denote biological sex. And what you're asking them to do is use language to promote an ideology they don't believe in. It's almost like demanding that people say the Ave Maria or the or our father, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's a very different and I know a lot of people now, most people I've known have always known trans people and always said that they will use the pronouns that

the person has transitioned to out of courtesy no one believed that they actually changed sex but it's a polite fiction that we all engage in because we're decent people that's right um but a lot of those friends i have now are now saying they won't any longer do that because the stakes are now very high because now we have an entire movement that is very powerful telling us we need to deny reality and so until this is defeated they're going to be be calling people by biological sex because it's very important that they do so i i would say it's actually you could argue it's a moral good to misgender i hear you but i i i would make the call differently if i own twitter not if i wouldn't want a law saying it but that that would be an area where i would say listen it's my company and

i and this is the kind of thing i don't want on my company. I must say that when I talk to the transgender people in the comedy cellar world, the right pronoun comes naturally to my lips because when I've talked to a transgender woman, I feel as though I'm talking to a woman. It's harder if you've known them before they transition, which I have that problem with people. I constantly make the mistake.

But yeah, if you've only known somebody as a woman, then it's easy. I don't understand what that means that we're engaging in a polite fiction. Well, because no human being has ever changed sex. And because we use the gendered pronouns to denote biological sex, for the most part, when we call someone who is biologically male, she, we're doing so because we don't want them to be because we understand that they need to present and live as the opposite sex in order to be happy and we want to make them happy or we're just respecting their gender that's what he's saying that's what i'm saying but i mean i think that it almost feels like oh we're saying this but we don't actually believe you well we don't you don't believe that people can physically

change sex do you i do believe that if somebody if a trans woman tells me that she's a woman, then she's a woman. I mean, we're not talking about biological sex. We're talking about gender, right? Well, that's the question. So most people use the phrases man and woman, male and female, to denote biology. Well, not anymore. Most people still do. You use it to denote identity, and that's fine.

That's fine as well. But it's two people using terms in different ways, that's all. Well, neither way is necessarily wrong. Right. We define words. Words are defined based on how they are used by speakers. And so some speakers use them to denote biological sex and some to denote identity, And I think both are valid.

Well, I don't think it's... But for instance, you take the example of this Leah Thomas, the swimmer. It's very difficult to have that conversation if you want to insist that there's... She. That she's a she. But she's not a she. She is a she. Well, then that's the end of the conversation, isn't it?

Yeah, it is. Because it's a sport for women. But it shouldn that's the end of the conversation, isn't it? Yeah, it is. Because it's a sport for women. But it shouldn't be the end of the conversation. Well, it is because you don't get to say. Because I'm telling you it's not. Leah Thomas is a man. Well, we could also. That's why it's an issue.

No, but. We could also say that she is a she, but with an asterisk that she has certain advantages. Not an asterisk. However you want to. No, but you don't get to say what other people are. Like if Leah Thomas is telling you that she's a woman, then she's a woman. Does that extend to things beyond gender? Can I tell you I'm

fat? I mean, you can tell me whatever you want. You only bring this out of me because I don't really agree with what you're saying, but I'm on your side about this, which I already expressed. I'm very, very sensitive to this issue, mostly because I really came to this when I saw that documentary.

Walsh, was that the guy that did the documentary? Yeah, Walsh. Actually, I didn't see that documentary, but I saw a video he did with a story that he was reading. Yeah. And just the vibe of mocking with kids in the audience. This is something that's like, I kind of agree with where they're coming from, but I don't want to be associated with what I feel is a meanness.

No, neither do I. But I think there is a moral prerogative to acknowledge that Leah Thomas is male, given that Leah Thomas has been beating women to the top level of the podium, which is an immoral act, and then it becomes important. It doesn't become important if we're sitting with Leah Thomas having a drink and I would happily use whatever pronouns are required or wanted.

But when it comes to someone who is actually in a sports category they shouldn't be in, and that has implications, then I think there is a moral prerogative to identify the reality in that situation. So everything we're saying now should be on Twitter. But if Dan, if we were talking about Leah Thomas and Dan said, he just,

I say, Dan, please don't, don't say he, you know, no, that, that,

that, that would be because his decision. I mean, when, when we start compelling speech of others, it's my show. That's fine. There we go.

So that's fine. Cause it doesn't represent it. It would, it would, it would like, I wouldn't be comfortable with it. And I've, and I don't feel as constructive. I think it's my show. Well, fine. There we go. So that's fine. Because it doesn't represent, it would, like I wouldn't be comfortable with it and I don't feel as constructive. I think it's mean. I get it.

I get what you're saying. Wait, so what moral responsibility do we have when misgendering people actually is dangerous and it puts people's lives at risk, which it does, right? No, it doesn't. Of course it does.

Of course it does. In certain neighborhoods. Give me an example. So in going on public transportation late at night and a trans woman is trying to pass, quote unquote, and she gets beaten within an inch of her life because somebody says that she... Because somebody tweeted something? Yeah, who knows? I mean, there are multiple...

I mean, I know people that this has happened to, right? Well, that's a crime. But people attacking people is a crime. It's nothing to do with what language people use. Well, certainly people physically attacking people is a crime, but don't you have... Isn't there sort of some ethical or moral ground to stand on

that's saying saying so you... Not to create an atmosphere of hatred. I'm just trying to... And also physical danger. Let him answer that. I'm trying to understand your point. Am I right? I just want to make sure that I'm getting you right.

Are you saying that when people misgender people online and that kind of thing, they cultivate the kind of atmosphere within which violence flourishes? Is that the point you're making? No, that wasn't the exact point I'm making, but I do agree with that. I think that if you have somebody who's going to work, let's say at a Walmart, and they are going as the gender that they identify as in some small town in Alabama, and then that person is... Okay, Perrie, let's take it away from the

trans thing for a second. Well, I'm not the one who brought the trans thing up. Hold on. Let's take it as something that you and I could speak of and be less of a target to somebody listening. I believe that people should be able to tweet whatever they want about the Holocaust having not happened.

What do you think of that? I'm not. Everything you're saying could... Just don't call me a hebe. And not only that, you would probably like it. Years ago, when we first started doing our debates

at the Comedy Cellar, I wanted my next debate to be whether the Holocaust actually happened or not. Okay. And everybody told me I was crazy and I eventually didn't do it. I said on the radio interview, and they're like, are you serious?

You think it didn't happen? I say, no, I think it did happen. But I think that it would be very healthy for everybody to hear exactly what the factual basis is, exactly what the evidence, all of it, because the answer to somebody who denies the Holocaust can't be, you know that's not true, and shut up. So I agree with you.

And this is the thing about the trans thing. It kind of betrays a lack of confidence in your position if you're afraid to let people debate it. If you're really sure that what you're saying is right. I don't think you're saying that people shouldn't debate it. I'm not saying that people shouldn't debate it. If you're really assured that what you're saying is right. I don't think you're saying that people shouldn't debate it. I'm not saying that people shouldn't debate it. I'm just saying that people should respect

the pronouns that if somebody says that they are a certain gender, then that's what it is. But when I take the liberal view on that, I think anyone should be able to identify however they like and live the life however they want. I've always taken that view, but I really draw the line at compelling

other people to use language they don't want to use. I mean, for instance, if I married my partner and said, this is my husband, but a fundamentalist Christian refused to call him my husband, I shouldn't be able to, by law, insist that that person uses that language. Because I think compelled speech is very, very dangerous. And when you set the precedent for any one example that can spread that can go anywhere depending on who's in charge are you worried i hear what you're saying but are you worried that some of the some of the power of these new technologies are uncharted ground. The ability to bring millions of people all together to focus on one person, to bully them in some way, whatever it is,

is unprecedented and it's scary. And then it exists online forever. All these things, there's a little humility that I think is required there. I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is not the 1970s where you could say something and it would be in the paper,

and the paper goes in the garbage the next day and everybody forgets about it. Somebody who really singles somebody out for some sort of hateful language. This can be brought to bear on that person in a way that we've never dealt with in the history of the world. And it's scary. And it at least requires us, even if we come to the same conclusion, we have to retrace our steps on that. We have to. What do you mean by retrace our steps? Retrace all the reasons that we thought this was okay.

Well, no, because there's never going to be a situation where I would say one person in charge gets to decide which opinions are hateful and which opinions are not. That's very, very dangerous. I mean, you know, if you take the example of Galileo, he was committing hate speech in his day. That was hate speech. And, you know, your position then would be that the inquisitors were right to keep him under house arrest. No, of course not. No, no, no. But it's the same thing. I mean, because there's never going to be a situation where you can have an infallible censor.

That doesn't exist. So just on the point of principle, I don't think you can have that. You can never have an infallible censor. And the best way to deal with bad ideas is to talk about them. And the Holocaust is a very good example. When David Irving went to prison for Holocaust denial in Austria, that created a martyrdom around him, a sheen of glamour. It suggested that maybe there was a point to what he was saying

because people were trying to silence him. What actually defeated him was when the historian Richard Evans took his historical case apart, demolished it, dismantled it. And by doing so, no one can seriously now credit him with any kind of validity. And that wasished it, dismantled it. And by doing so, no one can seriously now credit him with any kind of validity. And that was the way to deal with it. All right, what about this?

And I know slippery slopes are real. So we do have an incitement exception. I think you agree with the incitement exception. To a point, but I hold it very, very high. To a point. Yeah. And yet, there'll never be an infallible determination

of whether something was incitement or not. There will be close calls, and people will disagree. The Supreme Court will vote five to four. It was incitement or it wasn't. Incitement is to protect, and there certainly are levels of psychological damage, and I understand what you're thinking already, but the fact is there are certain levels of psychological damage which are comparable to what we are trying to prevent by having rules against incitement.

There are. Maybe even more hurtful. I could imagine people say I'd rather be punched in the nose than go through what I went through on Twitter. Well, no one's denying that words can be hurtful or can have an emotional impact. No one's denying that. But it's absolutely impossible to legislate against that, right? You could even go so far as to say, well, hurtful words create stress, cause cancer, cause death. I mean, you could go that far.

But I'm not even asking about legislation. I'm just saying I think Twitter ought to, in good faith, try to have some kind of standard that can distinguish between debates of ideas and actual singling somebody out for abuse. Well, also, Twitter needs to create an environment that... But I respect your opinion. I'm thinking out loud in a certain way, but that's my inclination. Twitter needs to create an environment as a business wherein users will be comfortable there.

So, I mean, they don't want to create an environment that's so hostile that users will flee. Yeah, but some perfectly innocuousuous legitimate views are interpreted as being hostile because we're all human beings with different ideas about the world. Twitter's got its work cut out for it. Well, I would say the best solution, surely the best solution is just to have each user determine what they want to read and what they don't read.

They have a block function for a reason. I didn't need Kanye West to be ditched because he posted that swastika Israeli flag because I can just block him and I never have to see it again. Problem solved. The implication by Twitter banning him is that all these people need to be protected, and he's protected by some plutocrat in Silicon Valley. No, they don't. We can all take our own responsibility for what we read and what we don't. Okay, I'm going to use a bad word here, but imagine one day on Twitter, Andrew Doyle faggot is trending, you know. It has been. People have called me stuff like that. I got called a sodomite once, which I quite enjoyed. It's kind of biblical.

And you have maybe the disposition to handle it. Not really. I block everyone. Man up. I block everyone. I just block them. Yeah, but you block them, but you're not going to be insulated from it. You're going to know about it.

And whatever. Okay, I think we've exhausted this topic. It's quite an interesting topic. It is. You have to bring up the Twitter though because I just discovered it and we were cracking up downstairs. So I want to ask you one more question.

Is the following true? It's very important what happens in America because the rest of the world will line up a this issue. Nobody will separate themselves too far from America's absolute free speech. If America were to move where England was, England and France would move further in that direction, in my opinion. True or false? I don't quite understand what you mean. Do you mean that laws in England follow the precedent of America? I'm saying America is so powerful as a cultural leader that other Western nations will only go so far in their latitude of punishing speech

because they will not want to be seen as being that far away from the American standard. That if the American standard were to move where England is now, that would now free England to move even further to the right, be even more free with their politicians. I have no idea. You get my point. America is an anchor here. America does not allow any rules on speech.

Certainly that impacts what Germany does on speech. Does it? I mean, Germany, I mean, you know, there's a book by Paul Coleman called Censored, which actually reproduces in facsimile form all of the hate speech laws across Europe. Were those developed as a reaction to America? No, I think they're hemmed in by America. I don't, you don't know. I wouldn't have thought so.

I think these things have developed out of all... I mean, our unwritten constitution and laws have a history that goes back to the Magna Carta and to our own particular history. So France outlawed the hijab, right? But that's to do with their laicite, their secularism. Right, right. I'm taking this as an example. This was considered outrageous in America.

I guess what I'm saying, if America didn't have constitutional protections that would not allow us to outlaw the hijab. Yeah. I think France would be way freer to go to town

on what they'd like to do in terms of regulating religious expression in France. I don't think European countries care what America thinks. No? Okay. You would know better.

Go ahead, Dan. Sorry. No, I was just going to say, yeah, I don't think Andrew's in accord with you on America's influence. We'll cut his answer out. It's not live then.

Well, that's fine. It's your platform. So you can send to me all you want. So you want, so, okay. So tell the listeners about Titania.

Yeah, I thought it was Titiana. I read it wrong. I mean, for years I've been reading it as Titiana. Yeah, me too. And mean, for years I've been reading it as Titiana. Yeah, me too. And Tatiana I've had a lot. And yet, so a lot of people mispronounce it, particularly in America.

And I'm surprised because Titania is a main, major character of Midsummer Night's Dream. And Shakespeare's very popular over here. Yeah. So I would have thought people would. Are you being sarcastic? No. No, no.

Well, Shakespeare is popular amongst a certain. She's illiterate. Is that what you just said? sarcastic? No. Shakespeare is popular amongst a certain milieu. She's illiterate? Is that what you just said? No, it's a literary major. Narrow segment of the population. But everyone knows. No, everyone doesn't. Don't they? No, not at all. You're giving Americans a lot of credit.

Doesn't everyone study Shakespeare at school? But not Midsummer Night's Dream. If we study everything, we study Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and Macbeth. Those are the ones that I read in high school. Can you read Shakespeare? I tried to read Hamlet recently.

I have to read slowly and ploddingly. I can't understand. No matter how slowly I read, I'm also reading Bleak House by Dickens. I cannot understand what I'm reading. I buy annotated versions. Well, Bleak House is great. It's great, but there's so many references there, and if you buy the annotated version

and you see what the references are, you realize how much you're missing, and you can't possibly know this stuff. You have to be alive at that time. It's referencing current events, it's referencing verse from the Bible that everybody knew back then that, you know, we don't know. But at least it's

English that we are familiar with, where Shakespeare, the actual vocabulary is different. It's on a continuum, yeah. But anyway, so. Wait, so is this picture of Titania, is this the actress that you write for? No. No, that is not a real person.

Okay. That is a, I Googled smug woman, and I got an image and then I adapted the image. A friend of mine who's good on computers, you know, we added the glasses, we made her neck a bit shorter. So it's a composite of various features from various women.

So it's not a real person. Okay. So you have an alter ego, Titania McGrath, who is a deep, deep satire of wokeism on, and you had how many followers? I don't know what it is. 752.5 thousand. Yeah.

Yeah. That's what it is now. Not bad. It's not bad at all. It's so funny. Oh, it's amazing. Thank you. And you were booted off Twitter at one time?

Oh, yeah. So she's been suspended many times. Really? Yeah. There were a couple of seven day suspensions, a few three day suspensions, and then a permanent suspension. I got an email saying, you know, this is it. It's over.

Was that, to get that many followers, is that a gradual process, or were there a few really big names that retweeted you and pushed you? Yeah, he's trying to figure out how to get his followers up. Well, no, the biggest... Well, the most followers I ever got was when, what the hell's that guy's name that was big on Twitter?

Simon Cowell. No, no, no. There's a guy that used Twitter. He was a comic and he used Twitter. Andrew Donald. Irish name. I forgot his name. But he retweeted something and that's most of my followers.

Go ahead. I don't know. I did it at first to entertain myself. How long has she been around? Oh, 2018. I'm becoming an expert. 2018, right. I'm becoming an expert. Well, what happened was a few major people on Twitter,

people with a lot of followers, liked her, started amplifying her. That is the way you get more followers, really, is when people with a lot of followers retweet you. But really what really boosted it was when she was permanently banned because it was a permanent ban. But then because there were three or four celebrities who followed her, they kicked up a fuss.

And so Twitter reinstated her. And it was very weird because I just thought, I thought, okay, well, that's it. She's gone. And then all of a sudden she was back. And then she wrote an article for some online thing talking about her oppression or how she'd been oppressed by being kicked off Twitter.

I think it was called, I now know what Nelson Mandela felt like. Because she'd been oppressed by being kicked off Twitter. I think it was called I Now Know What Nelson Mandela Felt Like. Because she'd been off for like 48 hours. And after that, Streisand effect, you see. So after that,

I got an extra something like 30,000 followers that night once she was back because they'd drawn attention to it by banning it. Right.

So to your point. You called it the Streisand effect? The Streisand effect is when you, by trying to censor something, you make it hugely popular. It was when Barbara Streisand effect? The Streisand effect is when you, by trying to censor something, you make it hugely popular. It was when Barbra Streisand

was trying to sue a photographer who'd photographed her Malibu home and published it, and she didn't want anyone knowing where her home was. And by doing so, everyone knew about it, and the photograph went wild

all over the world. But that's what happened when Billy Joel, when they tried to ban Only the Good Die Young, the Catholic Church was pissed because he was talking about, you know, the lyrics of the song, Only the Good Die Young, the Catholic Girl,

whatever he was saying. Catholic Girl Start Much Too Late. Again, any book. So anyway, that's what pushed that song into... Stratosphere. Stratosphere, I guess. Also Dr. Seuss, right? All of those books that they were recently... Oh yeah, they all started selling out. That's right. That's right, yeah. Good stratosphere, I guess. It does. Also, Dr. Seuss, right? All of those books that they were recently...

Oh, yeah. They all started selling out. That's right. That's right. Yeah. Good parallelist, too, today. Portugal. Is the Streisand effect something that you came up with, or is that what it's called?

No, that is what it's called. Yeah. That's like a thing. You never heard that, Dan? No, no. I call it the Billy Joel effect. So, is this like a Sacha Baron Cohen thing? Like, does everybody know she's fake

or created or not really so it's a strange one because of course i was never open about i didn't even tell my best friends that i was doing this for years no i i could just do whatever i want and then i i got a phone call one day from my agent who'd been talking to a publisher who'd been asking do you know anyone who writes satire against the social justice movement and so my agent phoned me up saying do you know of anyone who might do this and i said well i've got a character that does this and he was following her not knowing it was me so then i wrote a book the first titania book and what had happened is the week that it was being published uh some investigative journalist at the sunday times or the times uh worked out it was me.

I mean, she'd been like comparing quotations that Titania had done to things I'd written in articles. She'd been phoning my friends. It was really in depth. And so I was sort of outed as being Titania McGrath the week of the publication. And that made the book sell really well. Amazing. Which was really great. It looked calculated, but I'm not that smart. It wasn't like that. And so then people knew it was me and then i got a lot of abuse for doing

because you know she really annoyed a lot of people so um but since then what's weird is there's been all this publicity and people i've been talking about on various podcasts and things but still every tweet i do and i don't tweet as much as from her now because i've been doing that long time it's not my priority at the moment but there's still always people getting angry at it and they think it's real even now every tweet there'll be someone complaining and and and saying who is this woman and because it's close enough to what they do say right how how awesome is your life by the way like you're no i'm serious you wake up say listen i'm doing everything i want to do i can write books about what i'm thinking about i can tweet with this funny character.

I can do stand-up comedy. I'm making a living. I can go buy a suit. Yeah, sure. No, no, honestly, what a great life you're carving out for yourself. Are you saying I'm very pampered? No, I mean it with all sincerity. Do you ever wake up and say, this has been fantastic?

But do you have love in your life? Well, you know, we all have a certain darkness, don't we? I think, of course, I'm incredibly fortunate. I think most of us are. And to be gay and living in the 21st century as opposed to even 30 years ago. Right, exactly. Yeah. No, I need to constantly remind myself of that.

You're right. Because we're all kind of prone to wallow, aren't we? And to think we've got it. Well, but Noam's life is not too far behind. The one thing you have that Noam doesn't have is, I guess, youth, relative youth. You get to run your own comedy club and do that. I'm very happy with my life, too. Noam, for the past 30 years, his life has been music, babes, and falafel.

I think about this a lot vis-a-vis people. I had a certain, I don't want to call it a soft spot, but there was a certain non-political way that I looked at Trump. I said, this motherfucker is living a life. This guy has done everything he's wanted to do, and just when you think he's done, I'm going to be president. And then he wins the presidency. Just as a story of somebody getting everything out of life.

This is a remarkable story. But we do need to be a bit cautious insofar as, you know, there is a correlation between serious depression and wealth. And wealthy people tend to be the most depressed. Is that true? Yes. And so therefore, you know, even- Where does wealth begin?

What net worth number do you say wealth begins? For purposes of that... Anything more than me. It's relative, I suppose. I mean, everyone in this country is wealthy on a global scale, but, you know... Well, yeah. I think it doesn't matter how rich you are, how much you're getting, the things you want.

There's something about human beings that we always kind of look on the downside. Is it the wealth that creates depression, or depressed people somehow get wealthy because they have a personality? I've known people who've become very, very successful

in their industry, particularly in comedy, and they've never been more unhappy, you know, and they were more happy when they were struggling. So it's the wealth itself that created depression.

I don't know. I just think it's a mistake to assume that success in your career or relationships or anything

necessarily equates to a happy person because it often doesn't. I would comment on that the following. Based on having had a few periods where I was working on something and saw it to success, that period of waking up in the morning and having all that drive

from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to sleep, you're working on that thing. And that lasted me for many years on some things I was doing. These are actually the happiest times. Yeah. When you're striving for something.

Yes. Once it's success, not the wealth, but once that is done, like now in the comedy cellar, you think I get the most pleasure. No, it's actually, now it's the opposite.

Now I'm always worried about losing it. Right. I'm not building it anymore. I'm always in a defensive posture. What if this goes wrong? What if that's good? That's not fun. Yeah.

That's not fun at all. I'm not depressed, but it's not nearly as fun as the ride up. Well, yeah. I mean, I wonder if Seinfeld was happier, happiest when he was just a standup comic and maybe at the beginning of his show when things were... Because for the past 30 years, he's just been a very wealthy guy

on top of the world. But there's no upward movement. And then he has to deal with Larry David being so successful at the same time. That must bug him. He's human. It probably does. Yeah, yeah.

Because Larry... He's probably still richer than Larry, but Larry is more comedically relevant. People put way too much emphasis on money. Well, that's what I just said. Larry is more comedically important. Larry has a show. Curb Your Enthusiasm is a still relevant show,

and Jerry really is not comedically relevant. I'm sure Musk has not had this much fun in years. Right, and that's why he tweets the way he does. He's getting, and owning Twitter, like, why would he do it? He doesn't even know his, he doesn't give a shit. He wants to enjoy himself,

and this is, he must be getting the time of his life out of this. And I, you know, I respect that. I think that's a, you only live once. You only live once. I think it's also when you accomplish something really big, and then it's over, you feel empty, right?

Like after Stupid. Yeah. Well, Stupid, I'm still trying to make that successful. I finished creating it and that took two years, but it's true. After that launch party, Stupid or Stupid set on the stoop of the world famous comedy seller

is an animated short series that I host. You had the time of your life making it, right? It took so long. It was so hard. It was fun and exciting, and now it's done, and we're trying to take it to the next level. But like you do, you feel like – did you feel like that after you finished writing your book,

Dan? There was a sense of, there was a sense of loss. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. No, really excellent.

I'm not, I will read it. Well, thank you. Perry L wrote a book too. Two books. I haven't read them. Well,

there was a sense of loss, a sense of, you know, my companion, which I get the same sense sometimes after I finished reading a book that I love. Yeah. It's like, Oh, my friend is, I don't same sense sometimes after I finish reading a book that I like. Yeah. It's like, oh, my friend is,

I don't have my friend anymore. We have to wrap up. Anyhow. I want to say this. The battle is not for free speech on Twitter, in my opinion. The battle is to maintain the social norm that values free speech.

Yes. And we used to have that, and it's decaying, it's corroding, and it's very, very dangerous in my opinion because once people forget that they believe this, everything will slide in the opposite direction. And I'll say one more thing. The public-private distinction, you know, it's real and at times it's dispositive on the other hand we didn't have so much respect

for that distinction when when people were racist people were making that that was the argument that people hid behind when they wanted to be racist and and and uh you know treat black people in a certain way is my right to treat black people anyone i don't have to let them in my business and we found our way around it through kind of an expansionary use of the Commerce Clause, which now seems like common knowledge and cliche. But at the time, a lot of very responsible legal scholars said, come on, the Commerce—they didn't mean that when they wrote the Commerce Clause, right? It was not an originalist view of the Commerce Clause. I'm happy they did expand it, but I don't know if it was actually sound legal reasoning.

But the country is way better off for violating, to finding a way to violate that public-private distinction. I don't think we want the public-private distinction to be violated when it comes to speech. I'm only making the point that once people decide that speech is bad, they will find clever ways to jump that guardrail. Yeah. It was righteous when they found that clever way when it came to civil rights. It will not be righteous when they find that way to jump the guardrail when it comes to free speech, but they will find a way. And if that becomes the consensus of the country, it eventually will be reflected in the justices that are appointed to the Supreme Court, and we

will lose that. So that's my feeling about it. You agree with what I just said? I do. I think we are in a time when the notion that words are violence is widely accepted, in a time when creative people are mistrusted because artists and writers and comedians are seen, there is a responsibility or perceived responsibility to be putting out the correct social message. And all of this is based on a fallacy, the fallacy that the public is influenced by the media it consumes. An act on cue according to the films they watch

or the books they read or the plays they see or the comedians they listen to. And we know that's not true. There have been six decades of research into media effects theory and it's been debunked many, many times. Is this to say that commercials are a waste of money for companies? Well, it's very hard to persuade anyone to buy anything. The reason why commercials work is because people are already predisposed to the item that you're selling.

It's the reason why there's all sorts of studies into propaganda that show that propaganda doesn't really work unless people are predisposed. And in fact, when you attempt propaganda when they're not predisposed, it has the opposite effect. So we've bought into these myths and there's so much studies into this. So I don't understand why we have bought into those myths. And we need to reclaim that idea, that distinction between words and violence, they're not the same thing. It's an important distinction that we have to retain. Because once you decide that words can be a form of violence, you can decide which words are hateful and which words should be banned. And they might not necessarily be harmful, they might just be the words that you don't want to hear.

And they mean ideas of violence, you know, that's where it's going. Well, also, it's used to preemptively justify actual violence. You know, when groups like Antifa say, it's perfectly fine for me to hit a Trump voter over the head with a bike lock because that person's words and ideas are violent to me, and therefore me hitting them is a form of self-defense. This is very dangerous stuff. Or how about when the consensus of people working for the New York Times

is that the editor should be fired for simply running an editorial about you know, how to control riots. But the New York Times is now an activist publication, so it doesn't really have credibility as a journalistic publication. But I guarantee you the New York Times is writing editorials in favor of the Nazis marching

in Skokie 30 years ago. Well, of course. But that's the problem I identify now with the left. That's what they've let go. This fundamental principle that they should be embracing and used to embrace. And I think it's a real tragedy that they've let it go because now people do perceive it because they hear right-wing figures

defending free speech. Now they think it's a right-wing thing. Also, it's fun to engage with people who drastically disagree with you. It's great fun. I used to enjoy that a lot. It doesn't happen now because the friends of mine who politically disagree with me are no longer my friends. They won't talk to me. Whereas back when I was at university, we used to stay up all night arguing passionately and disagreeing and getting annoyed with each other even sometimes. But it was fun. And we would we would laugh it off the next day. That was part of the experience. And now there's

an expectation of conformity, which I think isn't good for human relationships and friendships even. And by the way, the arrogance, they want to ban a tweet that 40 or 50% of the country agrees with. I mean, it's almost proof positive that this is simply the point of view of the censor because it's not like 1% kind of where this is really an outlier position. Only a crazy person would believe this. We shouldn't allow this.

I mean, it's like every hypothetical is broken by the example of Nazis. But this is not Nazi stuff that people are taking down off Twitter. This is pretty mainstream, reasonable minds can differ stuff. Before we wrap up, there's some controversy on Twitter as to how old you are. It says you're either born in 78 or, sorry, not Twitter, Wikipedia. You're either born in 78 or 79.

Yeah. So 44 or 45. Well, which is it? I'm not going to tell them. I want them to be mistaken. 44 or 43. I don't know. I mean, what's the difference between 44, 43, 44, 45?

No difference. But I quite like the fact that Wikipedia gets everything wrong about me, and I want to keep it. So you were not born in Derry, Northern Ireland? No, I was not. That will be done. I believe you probably put your own Wikipedia. No, I don't.

Disinformation. That sounds like a Titania. I used to try and, like with that, like with the birthplace, I used to try and change it, and then it would change it back again and say, you don't know. But were you at least born in Northern Ireland? No. I'll be darned.

My friend Harry Anton's birthday is wrong on Wikipedia as well. They don't know anything. I mean, these things are just sort of decided. Yeah. Anybody can add anything to Wikipedia, right? Yeah. But there are people that oversee. There are censors.

Well, thank you. But it is quite, it is quite good that, that private information is not out there because, you know, I don't want people. So your uncle is not Iman Malar? Sorry? Your uncle is not Iman Malah, whoever that is? Yeah, he is. That's right. Why have they got that? I mean, that's a really weird thing for

Wikipedia to say. Is that how you pronounce it? Malah? Malah. He was a civil rights activist and republican activist in Northern Ireland before the Troubles and he organized the first civil rights march that is considered the start of the Troubles, and he organized the first civil rights march that is considered the start of the Troubles. It was his.

Well, we'll be darned. But there's a weird thing. Why would Wikipedia mention that? Well, it didn't have anything else to say about your personal life, so it threw that in there. So they're grasping at straws here now, aren't they? There's just not any kind of vague detail they can throw down there.

But he's an interesting figure, so why not put that in? Andrew Doyle, his book. What else does it say? Does it have my height? It says you're gay, but that's correct. Okay. Doyle is gay. I'll give him that.

You went to the University of... You got a doctorate in early Renaissance poetry from the University of Oxford. A doctorate? Wow. That's almost right. Having studied at Wadham College, Oxford. I had a doctorate in Renaissance poetry.

It wasn't early Renaissance poetry. Is that how everybody pronounces it in your country? Renaissance? You say Renaissance. I play a Renaissance guitar.

It's the brand of guitar I play. Listen, we have to go. You are... Go ahead. Sorry, Dan. Go ahead. You want to... Andrew Doyle,

his books include The New Puritans, How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World, Free Speech, and Why Matters, and Titania McGrath's My First Little Book of Intersectional Activism, all, I assume, available where books are sold. I'm going to say something. I think you're a great man, actually. And I think you're a tremendously important influence on what's going on now. I'm very proud to know you.

I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I was very moved that you sent me that copy of your book. I want to be a constant supporter of everything that you do. You're fighting the most important battles right now. Good luck tomorrow at the Comedy Cellar.

Even if that doesn't work out. Thank you. Honestly, there's not that many people like you out there and it's so important. I will tell Louis Schaefer you said Honestly, honestly, there's not that many people like you out there, and it's so important. I will tell Louis Schaefer you said hello, but maybe you'll speak to him before I do. Anyhow, thank you, Andrew Doyle. Thank you, Perrielle and Noam, of course, and our dear friend Nicole, the sound wizard behind the scenes. We'll see you next time. Thank you. Bye-bye.