UNBIASED - October 31, 2024: YouTube Accused of Censoring Trump/Rogan Interview, ABC News Aired Election Results Already? Trump Speaker Called Puerto Rico Floating Garbage? Biden Called Trump Supporters Garbage?

Episode Date: October 31, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: American Who Traveled to Switzerland for Assisted Suicide Allegedly Found With 'Strangulation' Marks (0:07) Appeals Court Says Florida High School Association Can Refuse to Broadcast Prayer at Football Game (5:36) House GOP Sends YouTube Letter Over Censorship of Joe Rogan's Interview With Trump (7:53) Quick Hitters: Judge Allows Musk's $1M Giveaway to Proceed, San Francisco's New 'Cash Not Drugs' Bill, PCE Price Index Down to Lowest Rate Since 2021 Despite High Prices (10:07) Rumor Has It: Did ABC News Air Election Results Early? Did Trump's Rally Speaker Call Puerto Rico 'Floating Garbage?' Did Biden Call Trump Supporters 'Garbage?' Is the CDC Recommending COVID Vaccine for Children 6 Months Old? Are Electronic Ballots Not Allowing Trump's Name To Be Clicked? (12:05) Daily Critical Thinking Exercise (18:30) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features, BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long.

Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Thursday, October 31st. Happy Halloween to all who celebrate, and this is your final news rundown of the week. The first story is one that I initially heard about last month and took some interest in, but now there's been interesting new development,

to say the least. So last month, an American woman traveled to Switzerland and ended her life in what's informally known as a suicide pod or a suicide chamber. And I thought that alone was interesting. But what was also interesting about the story is that the president of the pod's operator company was arrested following her death because, I mean, in part because he was present for her death. But now what's even more interesting and adding to the story a bit is that a new autopsy report supposedly shows that the woman had what looks like strangulation marks around her neck. Now, neck marks are not necessarily supposed to happen when you're simply deprived of oxygen,

but it could be from a couple of things. It may not be nefarious. So let's first talk a little bit about this pod. So we have some background information, and then we'll talk about what we've learned since and some legality components. The suicide pod is more formally known as the SARCO. SARCO's website describes the pod as, quote, a capsule that could produce a rapid decrease in oxygen level while maintaining a low CO2 level, end quote. In parentheses, it says the conditions for a peaceful, even euphoric death. The pod has a very sleek, modern, futuristic design, which the designer says was intentional. It was meant to suggest

a sense of occasion, of travel to a new destination, and dispel of that yuck factor. There's no need for medical involvement, no insertion of IVs, no need for drugs, no specialized skills or training other than just turning the machine on. The sarco was inspired by a UK man who had locked-in syndrome, which is this rare neurological disorder where the person is completely paralyzed of voluntary muscles, except for the muscles in the eyes. The man didn't want to live anymore, and he had approached the director of a group called Exit International, which provides information and guidance on assisted suicide, to see how he could use technology to help him, quote-unquote, die with dignity.

Sarko says its goal is to provide the means for a self-determined elective death. Now, it's important to this story to talk about the fact that assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, as long as the motives aren't quote-unquote selfish. In the United States, some states, about 10 states plus DC, allow for physician-assisted suicide. But in the US, the patient voluntarily self-administers the lethal medication. Euthanasia is a little different because euthanasia is when the physician administers the lethal medication, either with or without the patient's consent, and that is illegal in all 50 states. That is considered to be homicide. So this American woman

who was 64 years old and a mom to two sons made the decision to end her life after being diagnosed a couple years back with a rare but very serious disease called skull base osteomyelitis. Due to an immune disorder on top of that, doctors said she couldn't be treated properly. So she dealt with these severe headaches to the point where she could barely move some days. She goes to Switzerland in September and goes to the middle of a forest near a cabin in a remote region near the German border. And she is said to have pressed the button to fill the pod with nitrogen at 3.54 PM and thereafter enter the pod. Because with this machine, you are responsible for pressing the button and starting the process. One man was physically present. Another man was present via video call to follow the process, but he actually wasn't able to watch the whole procedure due to technical difficulties. Once

the procedure ended, a forensics team arrived on the scene and removed her body. Since then, though, a Swiss newspaper and a Dutch newspaper reported that, quote, an autopsy had discovered strangulation marks on the woman's neck, end quote. According to one of the newspapers, there was a phone call a few hours after the woman's death where the prosecution allegedly heard from the forensic doctor that the woman had, among other things, severe injuries to her neck. Now, let's think about this for a second, because obviously there's the most obvious jump, which is that she was killed or someone attempted to strangle her, but there's other possibilities

here too. So perhaps she tried to harm herself in some way at some point before she went to Switzerland or went into the pod. One of the assisted suicide organizations have raised another theory. They say the marks may have been a result of her rare neck disease. So we don't really know what happened here, but it is said that the prosecutor has extended the scope of the investigation to include the possibility of murder. As far as the organizations behind the pod, they say they have more than enough proof that she was not strangled. They have camera footage of the whole process. They have oxygen level recordings, which show that the oxygen level remained at lethal levels within the

capsule until well after the woman died. They also say the autopsy report has been kept hidden from them despite having taken place five weeks ago. So very interesting story unfolding there that I wanted to talk about, and we'll actually return to this story a little bit later at the end of the episode. Next story, a federal appeals court has held that the Florida High School Athletic Association did not violate First Amendment rights, including the rights of free speech and the free exercise of religion, when it prohibited a Christian school's request to broadcast a pregame prayer over the loudspeaker at a 2015 football championship game. If you're thinking to yourself, 2015? That's almost 10 years ago. Welcome to litigation. Okay, this stuff takes a while. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, just upheld a lower court's ruling

that found that the announcements over the stadium PA system were government speech since they were scripted and controlled by the Florida High School Athletic Association, and therefore not subject to free speech protections. So this case stems from a 2015 championship game between Cambridge Christian and Jacksonville's University Christian School. While the FHSAA, a non-profit governing body for high school sports, denied the use of the loudspeaker, the PA system, the teams were allowed to pray on the field before and after the game. But the schools brought suit against the FHSAA,

saying that it violated their rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion when it refused their request for the loudspeaker. Now, this case has obviously been playing out for years, but the court's decision reads as follows, quote, at the 2015 football finals, only one person who made announcements over the PA system at any point during the game was the PA announcer. His announcements were entirely scripted, except for a halftime announcement. Every word of that script was put there by an FHSAA employee. Because we conclude that the FHSAA was regulating its own expression when it restricted pregame speech over the PA system, Cambridge Christian's free exercise claim failed. Now important to this story though, just for purposes

of tying a bow on it, is this. While the litigation was pending, Florida did enact a law that allows schools to give opening remarks before championship games, which can include prayer. They just can't be longer than two minutes per school. And per that law, the Athletic Association cannot control, monitor, or review the content of the remarks and cannot control the school's speaker. And the House Judiciary Chair has sent a letter to YouTube asking for answers as to why Joe Rogan's podcast episode with Donald Trump wasn't showing up in search results when users would search for it. So the letter was written by Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary

Committee, to the CEO of Alphabet, which is the parent company of YouTube. It reads in part, quote, on October 25th, 2024, Joe Rogan posted his interview with President Trump on his YouTube channel, quickly accumulating tens of millions of views. However, just three days later, on October 28th, YouTube users reported difficulty searching for the video on YouTube. Recent news coverage reports that, quote, searches on YouTube using the terms Joe Rogan Trump and Joe Rogan Donald Trump did not bring up Friday's three-hour sit-down at the top of the list. In response, YouTube released a statement acknowledging the censorship of Rogan's interview with President Trump, claiming, quote, For some searches on Monday, the original three-hour interview did not appear prominently.

Short excerpts uploaded by the Joe Rogan channel appeared, but we know it was frustrating for users looking to find the full video. We've worked to resolve this and viewers will begin seeing the full podcast in more YouTube search results soon, end quote. And I'm still quoting that letter here that was written to Alphabet. So it goes on to say, quote, Americans deserve access to political speech, especially in the closing weeks before an election. Given the company's recent history of censorship, including at the behest of the Biden-Harris administration, YouTube's censorship of former President Trump is particularly troubling. Therefore, we request an immediate briefing about one YouTube censorship of Joe Rogan's October 25th video featuring his interview with former President Trump. And two, Google searches elevation of anti-Trump stories about the interview.

End quote. The letter then provides a list of 15 questions for Alphabet to answer and calls for the briefing to be arranged as soon as possible, but no later than 10 a.m. on November 13th. We do not have a response from Alphabet at this time, but we'll see what happens here. Let's take a quick break, and when we come back, we'll do quick hitters, rumor has it, and some critical thinking. Okay, so let's do some quick hitters, shall we? In an update to that Philadelphia lawsuit against Elon Musk and his PAC and their $1 million a day giveaway, a state judge said he would not block Musk's giveaway ahead of

the election. And if you need to get caught up here, I did cover this lawsuit in Tuesday's episode, but Musk sought to move that lawsuit to federal court rather than state court. And in the meantime, the Philadelphia DA who filed the lawsuit asked the state court to put Musk's giveaway on hold until the federal court decides whether they'll take the case. However, the judge declined to do so. And the city of San Francisco's board of supervisors passed a new bill called the Cash Not Drugs Bill, which is part of a new initiative to try to combat the city's drug epidemic. Under the bill, the goal is to give $100 to those who are on welfare after they pass their drug test. The city's mayor said, quote, whatever it takes to get people on

the right path, that's what we need to do, end quote. However, critics of the plan say they don't think the money will override the hold addiction has on people and that these people will just use this $100 to go buy more drugs. And that payment will be in the form of either a gift card or electronic benefit transfer. The Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, or PCE Price Index, which is the Fed's preferred inflation measure, dropped to 2.1% last month on an annual basis. The Fed's goal is a 2% annual rate, so very close. September's reading of 2.1% is the lowest reading since February 2021. Notably, while inflation has cooled, prices are still high, and that's why both candidates,

Harris and Trump, have focused on how they plan to bring prices down if elected. The Consumer Price Index, which is indicative of the change in price of the average consumer's basket of goods and services, and also serves as the cost of living index, is up 0.18% from September and 2.41% from last year. And now it's time for Rumor Has It, my weekly podcast segment where I either dispel, confirm, or add context to recent rumors so that we're all as informed as possible. Remember, it's not my job to make you happy or tell you what you want to hear. It's my job to give you the facts. So keep that in mind and let's get into it. Starting with the first one, a podcast listener wrote in, quote, is it true that ABC News accidentally aired fake election results prior to the election? End quote. Here's what happened. A local ABC affiliate WNEP TV based in Scranton, Pennsylvania,

aired a ticker on the bottom of the TV screen during Sunday's broadcast of the Mexico City Grand Prix. The ticker showed 100% of precincts reporting in Pennsylvania in the general election, with Harris winning the state. Harris had garnered 52% of the vote, Trump 47% of the vote. Following the incident, WNEP-TV issued a statement which reads, quote, test results for the upcoming November 5th general election mistakenly appeared on WNEP-TV early Sunday evening during a broadcast of the Formula One Mexico Grand Prix. Those numbers should not have appeared on the screen, and it was an error by WNEP that they did. The numbers seen on the screen were randomly

generated test results sent out to help news organizations make sure their equipment is working properly in advance of election night. The numbers were not reflective of any actual vote count. Pennsylvania law does not allow mail-in ballots to be taken out of their envelopes until 7 a.m. on election day, and no votes of any kind will be counted in Pennsylvania until after the polls close at 8 p.m. WNEP regrets the error and apologizes for any confusion. We have taken steps to ensure that it does not happen again, end quote. Moving on, one listener wrote in, did the speaker at Trump's rally call Puerto Rico floating garbage? Was that actually what he said, end quote. Well, the best way to address this one

is just by rolling the clip, so we will do that, but first let's add some context here. The speaker referenced here is a popular comedian named Tony Hinchcliffe. Hinchcliffe was among various speakers who spoke at Trump's Sunday rally at Madison Square Garden in New York. He made a series of jokes throughout his speech, but one in particular has garnered a lot of attention and criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. Puerto Rico is, of course, a U.S. island territory in the Caribbean. So here's the clip.

It is absolutely wild times. It really, really is. And, you know, there's a lot going on. Like, I don't know if you guys know this, but there's literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. Yeah. I think it's called Puerto Rico. Okay. All right. Okay, we're getting there.

Again, normally I don't follow the national anthem, everybody. This isn't exactly a perfect comedy setup. There's some people here. All right, very good. On a related note, one listener wrote in quote, Biden calling Trump supporters garbage, question mark, misinformation, question mark. Again, let's play the clip. But first, let's give some context. President Biden was on a call with Latino voters on October 29th when he brought up Hinchcliffe's rally comment about Puerto Rico. And this is what Biden said on the call. Donald Trump has no character. He doesn't give a damn about the Latino community. He's failed businessman. He only cares about the Latino community. He's a failed businessman. He only cares about the billionaire friends he has and accumulating wealth for those at the top.

And he says immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country. Give me a break. He wants to do away with the birthright citizenship. Who the hell said that in the last hundred years? And just the other day, a speaker at his rally called Puerto Rico a floating island of garbage. Well, let me tell you something. I don't know the Puerto Rican that I know or Puerto Rico where I'm in my home state of Delaware. They're good, decent, honorable people.

The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters, his demonization of his own consular. And it's un-American. It's totally contrary to everything we've done, everything we've been. Next, a listener wrote in asking whether a viral social media post is true. And that post says, quote, the CDC quietly added three COVID shots to the childhood vaccine schedule for babies at six months with zero scientific data, end quote. So if you're watching on YouTube, you can actually see the 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine immunization schedule for people six months or older. That

schedule says that for people that are not moderately or severely immunocompromised, the CDC recommends the following. For children six months through four years old that are previously unvaccinated, the CDC recommends giving a two dose initial series, one dose now and another dose at least four to eight weeks after dose one. Children between six months and four years old that have had one previous dose, the CDC recommends completing the series and giving dose two at at least four to eight weeks after the last dose. For children between six months and four years old that have received two or more previous doses, not including at least one dose of the 2024-2025 vaccine, the CDC recommends that the 2024-2025 dose is given at least eight weeks after the

child's last dose. And then finally, for those between six months and four years that have had two or more previous doses and the 2024-2025 dose, no further doses are indicated. And that chart then continues on for children aged 5 to 11 and those 12 years and older. If you are interested in reading it yourself, I do have it in the sources section of this episode. And finally, one listener wrote in asking, quote, is it true that some electronic ballots aren't letting people select Trump's name? End quote. I did see this now viral video, which shows a voter in Kentucky trying to click Trump's name, but the screen seems to not be responding. And then in the video, the screen selects Harris's name instead, which is one box below Trump's. I am playing that video right now. So if you're

watching on YouTube, you can see what I'm talking about. But at this point, I don't have enough evidence to speak to the source of the video, whether it's happening in multiple states, whether the glitch is only affecting Trump's name. I just don't know a lot at this current moment, but I do have the video for you so you can see what people are talking about. I think as of now, there's more than 1.2 million views on that post on X. And of course, what I can promise you is that if more info comes out, I will update you accordingly. That was this week's Rumor Has It segment. Hopefully you feel a bit more informed. And now let's move on to the daily critical thinking exercise. For today's critical thinking segment, let's deviate a bit from politics and talk about assisted suicide. As we heard about in that first

story today, physician-assisted death is what it's called here in the United States, and it's legal in 10 states plus D.C., but there are rules, right? So as we talked about, it has to be self-administered. A physician cannot administer the drugs themselves, otherwise it's considered to be homicide and very much illegal. What opinions do you have on assisted suicide and would you be okay with physicians having the ability to administer a lethal dose of medication? If so, are there certain safeguard measures that would need to be in place to protect that physician? What would those look like? And if your answer was no, that you wouldn't be okay with a physician administering a lethal

dose of medication, are there certain safeguard measures that if implemented would change your mind? And what would those measures have to look like? Would a patient have to have proof of a terminal diagnosis? Could anyone decide that they wanted to die regardless of whether they were sick? Is that a right a person should have? Does the patient need to sign a contract ahead of time indemnifying the physician? Think about it a little bit and see what you can come up with. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.