Hudson River Radio dot com. It beats listening to nothing. My godness, Frank, Being Frank, Frank, We're the only way to be is Frank. Hello everyone, and welcome to being Frank. We're the only way to be, is Frank. I'm your host, Frank Leblona, and I'd like to thank you for joining us on what we like to call the Intelligent Conversation podcast, where no conversation is out of bounds and all points of view are welcome. We go live to tape, and I always give you the date
so you have some context and some relevance to our conversation. It is the second of May twenty twenty four. Am old enough to remember when college protests against America's involvement in the Vietnam War had a lasting effect on the outcome of that war. I also remember the disastrous effect that resulted when a heavy handed response to a mostly peaceful protest on one such campus resulted in the death of
four innocent students. As of today's taping, we find ourselves in an eerily similar situation with protests royal and college campuses, both public and private, from coast to coast, with the crux of their mission to end israel siege of Gaza and the creation of an independent Palestine. Some have been peaceful, others
not so much. At Columbia University in New York, a private university and keeping with its tradition, perhaps the epicenter of the protests, a mostly peaceful, tense city sleep in turned violent when students and, according to the NYPD, outside professional agitators violently occupied the legendary Hamilton Hall. Eventually, at the request of the university, the NYPD did what it often does best and cleared the building in most of the campus within a few hours. It has been
reported that over three hundred people were arrested. Protests also turn violent in other campuses throughout the country, producing similar results. In fact, in the early morning hours before this taping, police authorities moved in great force to break up the encampment. At UCLA and the university at which i am an adjunct professor. Fordham University also experienced a blockade and the removal of some students. But will it end here? Should it end here? Do they have the right
to be there? Are the demands reasonable and doable? Do they have the same moral high ground as the students that came before them? Are they being duped by those with ulterior and less than honest motives? Does anti Semitism play a role? Can they win? Of course? The only way to come to at least some level of understanding for such a complex issue is through intelligent conversation. And who better than a man who's he's been a great friend of
this program. An expert in media and the First Amendment, he's a musician, blogger, and author, creator of its Real Life and Alternate History of the Beatles. He's also my colleague at forty University. Welcome doctor Paul Levitson. Paul, thank you once again for joining us. Well, I usually say my pleasure to be here, and I'm always happy to talk to you, Frank, as you know. But what's been going on is about the furthest thing from a pleasure that's come along in a long time. You know,
there's so much too unpacked. I mean, just the one paragraph. I took my list of questions basically from them, because I mean, all of them kind of need to be answered and on some level, so let's unpack one at a time as we can. Maybe the most important one, especially from your perspective In mind, as well as a journalist and a college professor. Do they have a right to be there? Do these protests have right to exist first and on any level, Well, absolutely, they have
a right to exist, and they have a right to be there. But the question of what the level is, what the nature of the protest is,
is absolutely crucial to this. The First Amendment explicitly guarantees the right of people to peaceably assemble and assembling in the case specifically of the First Amendment, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which in plain English is if you have a problem with what the United States government is doing, then you are absolutely protected in your right to peaceably assemble to petition the government to
change what it's doing. So, regardless of what our views are about US as savage brutal attack on Israel that started this, and in turn Israel's incredibly militant response to that, and we should talk about that as well, and we will, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind, and I think in the law that Americans have the right to peaceably assemble to say, well, we don't want the US government to support Israel as much as it's been supporting
Israel. But the word peaceably suggests that there is an important qualification there. You can assemble peaceably, which means, again in plain English, you can talk about things, you can carry signs that say things, you can communicate things. But once you begin doing things that physical assault people, and this goes beyond speech, and by the way, legally there are all kinds of
assaults. You know, if you put your hands on anyone and that person doesn't want your hands on that person, where you are guilty of assault if you do that. If you block a building, that are also going to get to that way block because you and I know you're making the point and getting to it. But to me, in my mind, right off the bat, what about block k preventing others from their execution of their dearly lives?
Does that cross the line if you do anything that prevents a person from doing what they are legally entitled to do, such as a student entering a building, And again, there are all kinds of ways you can do that. The most passive way is just blocking them from entering. More aggressive is you push them aside. So you have to look at the specific situation.
But once it moves from communication to action, in the real physical world, action that in some way interferes with a person's exercise of their lawful rights, then you are doing something that's criminal and not acceptable. Now, even there, of course, there's a whole hierarchy of assault, and you know, blocking a building surely is not as serious as pushing someone, ripping an Israeli flag out of someone's hands, making someone feel so uncomfortable they're afraid to be
on campus. But that's where the illegality starts. And then the question is what is the university to do to stop that illegality, because the university also has a profound responsibility not only to respect the of people who want to exercise their First Amendment rights, but to protect the rights of people to go about their lawful business on the premises of a university. It's a perfect point to make, Paul, but doesn't put universities. I keep thinking between a rock
and a hard place. And you see some of these university presidents testifying before Congress, and some of the let's face it, some of the responses have been horrendous at best. However, still considering a rock between again, using the analogy of Iraq or the metaphor rock and a hard place they do have. A university is supposed to be bastions of free speech, learning, communicating. We are communications professors, so we encourage it. Yet at the same
time, there has to be a function within the university. They have to function at the same time. And I guess it kind of brings me to a point that I wanted to make, and it's the John Lewis quote of making good trouble. Let's talk a little bit about how that line gets blurred because people will say talk is cheap. Anybody can talk, We can stand out there with bullhorns. Is it really going to be effective now? Whether and I want to as we develop our conversation, talk about whether this has
been truly effective or not. But in the past, a lot of people will say the only way is action, and there are many slow Martin Luther King said words without action, without follow up or nothing. Where is the difference between that and what's happening here in your mind? Well, if you look at people like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, you know, two of the great leaders of in affect peaceful revolution, but they also did more
than talk. They did inconvenience people. And that's why I said, first you do need to draw the line between I mean speech on the one hand and action on the other hand. But then you do have to look at what the action is. And technically, let's just talk about a rather innocuous
example. If you have protests to standing on a lawn in a university and that prevents other students from sitting on the lawn, Technically that's a physical violation, but I think most reasonable people would agree that that is a reasonable form of protest, you know, just standing on a lawn, not pushing anyone, not making people afraid to be, you know, in that place, not preventing people from attending classes. So you can't just say it's an either
or a situation. You can do that at the beginning, the either or being is it speech communication or is it action. Once you get into the action realm, you have to look at what the action is and that governs what the response is. And here, I think you know you alluded to
it in your introduction. Bringing in the National Guard is almost never an appropriate response because the National Guard are part of our military and they're you know, trained to be fighting in combat, and you know, the you know, in my life, and you know, in the life of anyone who remembers what happened at Kent State, you know, in nineteen seventy. You know, I put that right up there with the assassinations of John F. Kennedy
and Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King and right after that. The murder of those four students by the National Guard is one of the worst things that ever happened in American history. The only time anything justifies bringing in the National Guard would be, for example, the January sixth attack on the Capitol by people who were trying to overthrow the results of the election. You know, they weren't shooting, but they were armed with other deadly weapons, and
they were literally physically attacking Congress, breaking into Congress and there. You know, people often ask me, so, what would be a justified situation where the National Guard should be brought in? That would be one, But I can't think of a situation. I mean, I guess I could think of a situation, but none of the situations that have happened so far on campus
we justified the National Guard being brought in. So but the next level going down in terms of an extreme response to the university, is you bring in the NYPD, etc. And the question is what kind of physical violations again, not speech, not communication, not protected by the First Amendment, Warren't bringing in the police. And there you have to look at each situation.
And you know, you mentioned also something that's very important. There is a difference between peaceful protesters and outside adjectators whose sole view is to disrupt a situation for their own political benefit on a campus or any place else. And I think it's very important and very helpful to understand what's going on to as much as possible find out who are these people on campus? Are they students? Are they outside adjuctators? There's a huge difference there, and if there are
outside adjectators, that certainly justifies bringing in a local police force. Well, you know, Paul's very interesting and it's classic of what's happening today with social media too, depending on your point of view, and people make it again the people who are in total support of the protesters, especially if they interview students within and of course people have and should understand things are said from their perspective, from their point of view, and many of them are refuting the
claims that there are outside sources that the media is capitalizing grabbing onto this. This is another plot by the government to pull the wool over people's eyes. This is truly a true and truly student movement led by students and some professors. That there is some outside agitation, but it's extremely limited. Then you hear Mayor Adams from the NYP and speaking for the NYPD that their intelligence says so, and he produced actually a letter from Columbia that said please help us.
But again people would say, well that's Columbia. Of course is going to say that because they want to blame it on something else besides what really is So how do people wade through that ball? It's always a challenge. There's so much is such a flood of information and from both sides, and in very strong fashion. Well let me just say, you know, another First Amendment issue, and not to get off on this is the threat to ban TikTok. And as you know, I've said yes, yes, yeah,
the government shouldn't be talking about that. That bill should not have been signed into law by Joe Biden. It should not have been passed by either House of Congress. It shouldn't have been tucked into a completely different. The main part of that bill that was passed and signed into law was much needed aid for Ukraine and much needed military aid for Israel, and humanitarian aid for the people in Gaza and military aid for Taiwan. What does any of that
have to do with TikTok? The only justification of it that would be if there was evidence that the Chinese are using TikTok. The Chinese government is using TikTok to spy on us. Absent such evidence, which is very different than just concerns that people might have, that's a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Also, so to get back to the demonstrations, you know, I can't believe I'm hearing myself say this, but I'm glad that the NYPD made
some arrests because we'll find out pretty soon. I assume who did they arrest students only? Okay, so then it's not true, you know what the may of New York said is not the case. But if it turns out that there is any outside interference that certainly raises the ante, that is something that's going beyond the protest. That's just an outright attack on the university or
whatever. Play These outside adjectators may be going out and I do have to say to my wife, you know, she has like an eye for detail, and you know, she pointed out to me. You know, when you look at these videos of the encampments, many of them have seem to have like five, ten, fifteen green tents and they're the same green. Yes, y UCLA also wearing white helmets all the virtually all the students. Somebody's getting them. Why there is some organization obviously involved out top of exactly
right, And you know that basically also raises the ante. It's one thing that students are on a campus, are upset about something, and they even want to practice some civil disobedience, and you know, I think the university does need to respond to that if it's physical civil disobedience, but maybe they
don't need to call them the police. That's a completely different situation than if you have any outside adjectators stirring students up coming in on campus, you know, basically inciting students who might feel a certain way politically to get violent and to do things that interfere with the rights of other students or do things that make students uncomfortable because they happen to be you know, of a certain religion
and like just to be clear. You know, if you think about the protests during the Vietnam War, which I was a part of, I was tear gassed in Washington, you know, I went on many marches and so on. Sure that made supporters of the Vietnam War uncomfortable, but that's a very very different thing than making I want to talk about that, you know perfect well, it's like you read my mind. I want you keep hearing
the moral high ground. You know, at Columbia for example, at one point, and that's sort you heard in my intro, and it's the truth. These student protests that royaled the country during the Vietnam War area were effective. They were they they swayed public opinion. And then afterwards Colombia again I mentioned, they have a tradition of civil disobedience, if you will, and
UH they did it in the mid eighties for apartheid against UH. I want to talk a little bit about student demands down the road in more detail, but getting to the point where these students feel they have the same moral high ground as those who protested against the Vietnam War and those who protested against investment in apartheid by Colombia and were and were successful at the time. Are they analogous? Are there enough similarities? Are they the same thing to both have
equal moral high grounds in your mind? I wouldn't say equal moral high ground because the protests about the Vietnam War were protested against the United States government go over to Vietnam and killing people who never raised a finger against us, let alone attacked us or did anything. Was part of the Cold War insanity, you know, in which both superpowers were armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. You know, thank god, we're not quite in that situation anymore.
We got over it. But the Vietnam War was an undeclared war, meaning it was a totally illegal war. And it was also a war that had no reason to happen because no one attacked the United States, you know, the Gulf of Tonkin, which was a law which we all found out was a lot people. Remember there was a destroyer that was supposedly attacked by some Vietnamese patrol boats. All bs, and we'll leave it at that. That's
right. This is a very different situation because, first of all, it started as many of these protests who seem to either not care about or forgot, or I don't know what their problem is. But it's not as if Israel one day got up and said we are going to send a huge military force into Gaza and basically level parts of Gaza. And I think it's horrible the loss of human life there. And I'm no supporter of net and Yahoo. Frankly, if I were in ISRAELI I would do the best I could
to get him out of office. He's responsible for being asleep on the job or worse, because he was the person who was in charge when the Harmas attack happened in the first place, and that Hamas attack killed a huge number of innocent people, raped women, took hostages. You know, everyone knows
about that. And yet these protesters, they seem to have memories that begin I don't know, maybe like sometime in December or something, making no mention at all, or at most giving lip service to mentioning why all this started. So that's why, in response to your question, these two protests are not even remotely alike in my opinion, Again, the US and Vietnam no reason whatsoever based on a lie, no declaration of war, wrong for a
dozen different profound reasons. As far as Israel in Gaza, I don't support the extremity of some of what they've done there. I certainly was horrified by the killing of people who are trying to bring food into Gaza to feed people who are starving. You know, I'm horrified by all those things, and wherey in Israel, I would be working as best I could to get the
Israeli government and military to do things differently. But anyone who talks about that without first mentioning that none of this would started in the first place had there not been that savage, brutal you talk about anti semitism, This goes beyond anti semitism. Why do you talk about that. Yeah, let's get let's get to the cross. So many people say flat out that these protests are fueled by anti Semitism, despite the fact that many of the protests are populated
by Jewish students. Well, I think that there is some anti semitism there. I mean, I don't know. I mean, you tell me, surely these people don't have such poor memories that they forgot you know, what happened in October that started this whole thing. I mean, it's as simple as that, and Because of that, I have to conclude that there is some anti Semitism there. And as I mentioned too when we were talking, you know, before this podcast conversation began, even if Fordamuniversity there was a
petition center around and the title of the petition is justice for Palestine. Okay, I'm in favor of justice. But then when you read the petition, all it talks about is the Israeli attack on Gaza. Is if this whole thing started because one day, you know, Israel woke up and says,
hey, We're going to send a huge military force into Gaza. How anyone would have the audacity to distribute a petition like that that makes no mention of a mosque, It doesn't appear once in that petition is totally beyond me. And frankly, as a member of the faculty at Fordham University, I'm outraged as a faculty member that there would be people faculty at Fordham University whose moral compass would be so out of whack that they could talk about what's going on
in Gaza as if somehow Israel started that. It's the equivalent of talking about, oh my god, look what the United States did on D Day. They just you know, let's protest against the United States sending American troops into France and killing you know, Germans who were in France. Is if that's the way World War two started, No, it didn't. You know, it started with Pearl Harbor. And then you know, after we declared war
on Japan, Germany declared war on US. That's how it started. Well, this is well related, and it just reminds me how it's it's become more popular, if you will, all of a sudden, you know, for the longest time. And we've mentioned in Fordham, it's amazing, even though it's the Catholic University of New York, how many of the professors are
Jewish and students as well too. Well, I guess the point that I wanted to make is that for years, you know, many academics were probably as reel, and for a lot of it was the you know, it's it's the only democratic, mostly democratic country in the Middle East, et cetera.
So there there were reasons for it. That seems to have shifted lately where it seems like a lot of academic pressure seems more towards the Palestinian cause as it's presented by the students, that Israel is an occupier, that there is apartheid, Israel does practice apartheid. Do you feel the pressure from other academics also, and that this this kind of mood swings there is the right word, But I think you know, the point that I'm trying to make
here is is there. It seems to have changed, And what's evidenced is this enormous amount of student involvement, which I don't think was possible years ago. Why now? And I think it's got to be more than just what happened in October. Anyway, while stup rambling your thoughts, please yeah, well, you know, just an indication of how much things have changed.
My wife and I were just commenting the other day how unhappy we are that we seem to be on the same side as the Speaker of the House or Republican who came to Columbia University and said something which I strongly disagree with, that the National Guard should be called into Columbia. I don't think the situation there is and was remotely the kind of thing that the National Guard should be called in for, but as an indication of the sea change, although as
you well know, because We've talked about this many times before. I don't agree with just about anything that Republicans usually say, and so it bothers me that we seem to be at least somewhat on the same side as far as the Israeli Hamas conflict. I will say, though, you know, I
was very happy, and I don't know if you caught it. The President Joe Biden today gave a very very brief statement in which he outlined well basically what I said at the beginning of our conversation that America guarantees freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably protest, but draws the line at violence and you know, instilling fear into people by physically preventing them from doing things. So I
was glad to hear a Democrat say that. And I have to say, as far as politics are concerned, and in terms of what you said about there being a sea change, nonetheless, far too many Democrats in the House of Representatives. There's a guy up here by the name of Bowman, Jamal Bowman, I think his name is. I'm not going to vote for him in the primary, and I'm going to vote Vlatimer. You know, another Democrat, and you know basically, you know, they both have pretty good
records. But I don't like Bowman's anti Israel rhetoric because, again, as I've been saying, he seems to have some kind of memory lapse, because I don't hear him talking about Hamas. It's all Israel has attacked Gaza, which again is not only an insult to very recent history, but an insult to human decency to not at the very least acknowledge that the tragedy that's now
going on in Gaza was caused by Amas, plain and simple. You know, there are a lot of inequities that I see this and funny both of us, kind of young men at the Vietnam era and certainly liberal or bent. I think is certainly fair to say, you know, but there are certain things and when I see these protests that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. One of the things also is that how many students are wearing masks.
Now, I understand in some cases pepper spray, etc. There you get, there is tear gas, et cetera, and so it can be physically necessary at times, but there are other times during interviews, et cetera, where to me, it's simply because they want to mask their identity. Now. One of the demands, and I do want to go over some of the demands and whether they are reasonable or not, is transparency from the colleges where they're protesting. Where is their college tuition going, What are the
colleges investing in and so on and so forth. So they're calling for complete transparency on the part of the universities, and yet they're not transparent, often using only their first names, often using masks. And I know why because they could be held liable for what they're saying or accountable. I should say it is a better they could be held accountable for what they're saying and doing. Well, if you have the courage of your convictions, well then show
it. That's just kind of what's going through my mind when I'm watching all these things. Your thoughts, Well, I agree with you completely. Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi didn't wear masks. We didn't wear masks in the nineteen sixties when we protested the Vietnam War. We were proud of our protests because we thought that we, Marley, were superior to the people who were waging this unconstitutional war. And so yes, I wonder about that as well.
And look, it could just be a question of a personal cowardice, you know, you know, you don't have to be a total hero to protest. So I mean, I wouldn't say that's the worst thing that's happening, that they're wearing masks. But if they are trying to conceal their identity is because to get back to what we were just talking about, they don't want it to be known that, in fact, they're not students at whatever the university is. They're outside agucators, and that's why they're wearing masks.
That's another thing. Entirely. I assume they're not wearing masks because they're concerned about COVID, So you know, they're wearing a mask, you know, as you pointed out, to conceal their identity. But again, this is why I think it's so important. Evidence is always the path towards resolving these
complex, dangerous situations. And so again it sounds odd to say this, but I'm glad that the police took so many people into custody because we'll find out soon enough who are these people, you know, and it's our job as journalists and media people to find out so pleays me to my next question, So media doing a good job with this? Has it been balanced reporting
overall? I mean I've heard both things. Don't listen to the media there they're just taking the line of the of the of the school and the conservatives, and then other people saying, don't listen to the kids. They don't know what they're talking about. Where do we get good information? Is the media doing overall a good job of reporting what's really happening? I don't know. If I were a professor who was grading the media, i'd give them
maybe a city, you know, or at times a C plus. And I'm not talking about Fox News, which I only watched at times to see how, you know, horribly they mangle the truth and you know, they regularly talk about Trump's lies as if they were true. I'm talking about MSNBC, and you know, some of the people on MSNBC, for example, like Joy Anne Reid, who I think is actually a pretty good anchor. She has a show called The Readout. I think it's on from uh Joy
read I think, yeah, okay, from seven take. She also seems to have a little bit of amnesia, because I hear a lot of her commentary on what's going on now, starting with what Israel is now doing in Gaza. And just to be clear, I am not saying at all that that shouldn't be talked about. It should be talked about, it should be discussed in the media, and I understand completely people who want to protest that, but what I do find unacceptable and dangerous, and maybe it's sometimes motivated
by anti Semitism. I don't know what their problem is. But people, not only the occupiers of buildings on college campuses, but some of the commentators, some of the anchors on a generally progressive cable outfit like MSNBC, they also seem to be suffering from this amnesia. In contrast, for example, Laurence O'Donell, every time he talks about what's going on there, he's on the ten to eleven PM show, The Last Word, he always talks about
the Hamas starting this and what Israel is doing in response. And so again I am not saying that we shouldn't be talking about we shouldn't be scrutinizing this, we shouldn't be strongly criticizing Israel and doing what we can to get them to figure out a better way of basically exterminating Hamas. And I know that's not easy. I'm not a military person. I don't have the Vegast idea what the better solution would be, but killing so many innocent people that's not
acceptable either. But if you want to discuss that, which I think is always appropriate, if you want to do what you can to end that, you must make it clear in all fairness, in decency that Israel didn't start this. And I'll add anyone who says, well, Israel did start it because they came in in nineteen forty. It's apart in the second classes. I Wastitians have got used, used and abused forever. Yeah, you know
whose fault that is. It's the Arab's fault because basically, the whole idea of Israel, which was created after the Holocaust in World War II and Britain was trying to finally trying to do something right. They were pulling back as a colonial power, and they said we're going to set up a state of Israel. It had to be set up somewhere, and the idea was that, And I know it's easier said than then. There were people who were living there. They didn't want to move, but there's there are a huge
number of Arab Muslim countries all around Israel. Rather than trying to work something out to solve this problem right back there, and then in nineteen forty eight, what did those Arab countries do. They promptly attacked Israel, militarily tried to extert erminade Israel in nineteen forty eight. And that's what's been going on ever since then. And that's why Israel, you know, is in this position in the first place. And Hermas is just the latest expression of that
anti Semitic, anti Israeli hatred. And people, how did that message? How did that message? It seems to have gotten lost? I agree with you when I again, there's so little mention of Hamas, the elimination of Hamas, the guilt of Hamas in this whole thing. How did that message get so lost? Well, this is why I don't know the answer to that. But this is why so many people say it's a resurgence of anti
Semitism. And you know, I'll tell you this, and I made mentioned this to you previously a long long time ago, when I was a kid. I can't remember what the reason was, but I was having a discussion about some current event with my father, who was a lawyer, and at some point my father said to me, you know that might be you know, antisemitism, whatever the issue was, and me, whatever I was, I was like fourteen or fifteen years old. You know, the arrogance of
youth. Although many people think I'm still arrogant now, maybe even more so. But back then, I looked at my father said, Dad, come on, this is not the nineteen thirties anymore. There is no antisemitism. What do you And my father looked at me and said, you're going to find out that you're wrong. There's plenty of anti Semitism. It's just under the surface, and sooner or later it's going to come out. And you know, I hate to say it, he was right, it has.
Well before we go to our break, Paul, we wrap up this because we got to talk a little bit about TikTok. We teased it a little bit before. I want to talk a little bit about more detail. And also our buddy mister Trump is with the gag order, is back in the news as well. Going to squeeze him in. But before we'll wrap this up, where do we go from here, Paul, I mean, do they clean up the campus that they go back? Where do we go from
here? What happens now? Well, one fortunate thing in this very dangerous situation is that we are entering summer session pretty soon, meaning the spring term is pretty much over. So you know, if there was the best time to have these kinds of disruption on campus, it would be when there really
are no classes being held for a while. Summer session actually doesn't usually begin until May, so we have a good couple of weeks where there's going to be some great movement of students away from campus anyway, as they you know, going on about their normal life activities. So I think that that's good. That will lead to a good peacefulness and quiet to some extent, you know, I will say, and I didn't get a chance to mention this
before. I was very impressed with what Brown University did in response to the student protests there. But they said, is you know what, we're not calling the police in. They said to the protesters, We're going to turn this whole thing over to the board of trustees and let's see what their decision is. And I don't think they've given a decision yet. But the protesters, at least at Brown University said okay, that's enough for us, and
they withdrew. So I do think we need to take these protesters seriously. I do think again, to get back to what we were talking about at the beginning of this somewhat heated discussion, because I'm very heated about this, that they that whatever whoever the protesters are, they have a right to exercise their First Amendment rights, again, as long as it's not violent. And I think we have to encourage universities to be very judicious about when they call
the police in. You know, that's an inherently dangerous thing. I don't like seeing armed anyone on campus, including police. And again to just underline this point again to never call in a military operation, which is what the National Guard are, unless it's something that's the equivalent of January sixth, where actually the people in charge, meaning Trump and you know, the federal government, that was one of the worst oversights in that whole horrible event. Back
then, you're listening to being Frank. My very special guest is Fordham University media professor doctor Paul Levinson. I'm your host, Frank Leabono. We're back with more being Frank where the only way to be is Frank. In just a few minutes, Please don't go anywhere. Our conversation has been great and will continue to be so. Right after this Hudson River Radio dot com.
Check out The angel Quest Show with psychic media and author Karen Noe. Karen covers spiritual topics such as near death experiences, reincarnation, life after death, how your thoughts create your reality, creating peace on Earth, and so much more. Check out The angel Quest Show on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Bring a dash of green into your life. Check out the Many Shades of Green with Maxine, Margart Rubin and Malcolm
Berman. Get informed about environmental issues and current events that affect us all. Pick a shade of green and raise your eco consciousness with the Many Shades of Green available on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hudsonriverradio dot com. Welcome back to Being Frankly Intelligent Conversation podcast. Thanks for sticking with us. You know I'm your host, Frank Lebona, and we bring you a fresh topic every week, usually premiering on Thursday,
evenings. We stream from Hudson River Radio, located in beautiful and historic Stony Point, New York. Neil Richter, I call him the mailman because he always delivers, is our engineer. But remember, you can catch Being Frank anywhere you get your favorite podcasts. That includes Apples, Spotify, iHeartRadio, and all the others. Being Frank is also archives, so you can listen to any program anytime you like. Find a link to Being Frank on the
Hudson River Radio Facebook page or at our website Hudsonriverradio dot com. Click on my icon for the show and you're there. Leave us a comment, and please consider subscribing to the podcast. If you really like us, consider sharing us with your family and friends. My guest is a regular contributor, forda media professor, author and creator of Its Real Life, an alternate history of the Beatles, and so much more. If I keep giving you all of
his qualifications, we'll run out of time. In the program, Doctor Paul Levinson. Paul, we talked a little bit about what was going on in the college campuses, but it's time to change a little bit. I want to talk a little bit about TikTok. You spoke of it. We spoke it a little bit of it in the past, and you've teased it a little bit in the first half of our program. I talked to it a little bit about in detail and what inspired me. Also, obviously it's in
the news. Was an interesting article in the Fordham Rams newsletter written by Fordham and two students wrote something that was very interesting to me. The title is what a TikTok band would mean to two gen Z Catholics by Bridget McCabe and or an old Father, and congratulations to them for such an excellent article. Look. The crux of it being that again they see it as a force of good in so many ways, especially for their generation which has really kind
of grown up with it. They describe being the first thing they do in the morning and check it with their TikTok accounts. But also they took it one step further at the Catholic University that they use it as an expression also of their faith and share that with many other people. That's the upside we see that, and of course Congress has the fear factor of the downside. Anyway, put it into perspective for us, Paul, there's more everything, I guess has a bad side? Is there more good than bad? Tell
us? Well, first of all, I thought that was a great article, and I was very proud to be a professor at a university that has such intelligent, thoughtful students, and to give you an idea of what I think about this band of TikTok. And I mean this very seriously. Were it not for the fact that Donald Trump, if he is re elected president, could well destroy our democracy. Were it not for that reason, I would not vote again for Joe Biden. And the reason is that he signed
that bill into law threatening to ban TikTok. That's how wrong I think that law is. And I do think TikTok does an enormous amount of good. Of course, there are things on there that some people might dislike. Of course, there's propaganda on there. Of course, it's used by people whose motives God knows what they are. That's the nature of all social media.
And you know what, in many ways, nonetheless, social media are still better for our democracy than traditional media, which are gate kept in which somebody at the top makes decisions as to what they can and can't talk about. You know that worked, okay? You know I still like television but I think social media have added a really important dimension to our lives by giving people, whoever they are, and a chance to learn about things to express themselves.
And obviously TikTok has had this effect, has opened up this avenue for millions and millions of people. There are one hundred and seventy million Americans on TikTok. And to ban it because there is a concern, I don't care. The director of the FBI SA he's concerned about China. What does that mean? That's how we basically Chinese owned company. So the guys goes to China, where it goes from there? They don't know, right, I'm concerned about a whole bunch of things. But I mean, you know,
that's not a reason to ban something. And again, in some of these congresspeople, including Democratic congressmen, by the way, are painfully ignorant of the First Amendment. I can't even remember this guy's name. I mean, our listeners were welcome to look it up, he said, like a couple of
months ago. You know, this is not a First Amendment because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression to the people of the United States, not to some social app You know, that's not even here in the United States. Clearly that person doesn't understand the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees the one hundred and seventy million Americans that use it the right to express themselves there period.
You can't just ban a mode of communication because you're concerned about something. So I think this was a horrible thing, and I hope it's not banned. I would support TikTok one hundred percent if they go to the Supreme Court to get them to overturn that. Again, I do know why this is
like the worst example of what's called pork barrel legislation. You have a bill that's giving crucial aid to Ukraine. I was delighted about that it's giving aid to israel military fight against Hamas. I was delighted about that it's giving humanitarian aid to people in God's I was delighted about that it's giving military aid to
Taiwan that's being threatened by mainland China. I'm very happy about that. And that same bill they're basically depriving They're threatening to deprive one hundred and seventy million Americans of using TikTok. No, that makes no sense at all. I think it's blatantly unconstitutional. I hope it doesn't become enacted, and if it does, I hope the Supreme Court promptly strikes it down to the outrageous violation of the First Amendment. That it is no I have friends who don't use
social media, and we talk about it from time to time. Use it, and I don't let it use me. And that's what I try to explain to people sometimes that it's a tool. The tool you make things with the tool. The tool doesn't make things with you, So to me, it's an important tool. I be able. For example, when we're done here and Neil lets me know that everything is edited together, the first thing I'll go to is to social media tag you and friends, Hey, the
podcast is ready. How else am I to let them know my photography? I share my photography and also friends socially. I've reconnected often with friends who I would have no other means of finding and people say, well, they can find you too, et cetera. But I am in control of this media, not vice versa. And I understand for young people, and that's a conversation we can have for another day. Some of these outlets use their message to entice young people in not a positive way. Again, that's,
as I said a conversation for another day. I'm talking about adult use of social media, and as I said, it was something I always learned from my father, is like, it's not the tools. What are you making with the tool? Social media is a tool. TikTok is a tool. What am I going to do with it? How am I using it? And for me, I use it to my advantage. When it's not to my advantage, I block or don't look or scroll past. It's a pretty simple thing. I have to say. You know why people are so afraid
of it sometimes? Yeah, listen, I was very proud of you. I can't remember what it was a couple of months ago, some like honey pot woman basically commented on you know, one of your posts, and you have that very very well. I do have that. It was like two or three months ago on Facebook you said whatever, I can't remember who she was was clearly like, you know, some kind of bogus account. So
I think that you're you're a master already of social media. But I do have to say, though, one thing though, you know more seriously that kids have rights too. And we in the United States, I think, are too quickly, too quick to deny the rights of people who are not legally adult to do things. So and I'm not talking about six year olds or four year olds. I'm talking about fourteen year olds and sixteen year olds. They do make up a large part of the TikTok population and good.
I think that's great. I'm not worried. You know that, you know bad things are going to happen to them. Again, there's no evidence of that at all. And I think it's great that they have a way to express themselves as kids that age have never had in the past. Right, just one last point. We got just a few minutes, which is never enough time to talk about our buddy, Donald J. Trump once again fighting the gag order, using the First Amendment right to free speech as his as
his crutch, as his his shield. To me, it doesn't hold water because it's very specific. You could talk about anything you want except this. And there's a reason why there's an exception. Your your thoughts un fault. We'll wrap it up. Okay, Well, the courtroom has always been an exception to the First Amendment, and we can talk about that. You know,
judges and courts have enormous power. If a lawyer says to a judge, you know, because a judge has not basically accepted his or her objection to something else, and the lawyer responds, just say, you know, you're a real jackass, your honor, that lawyer could be found in contempt of court and sent to jail, you know, for a night or two. So you know, we might not like it, but you know that's
the way court to operate. And the gang Yeah, and the gag order on Trump is just designed to get him to behave the way that the courts insists that people who come before a magistrate and certainly being on trial, is the way Trump is as an example of that have to behave. You're not allow to criticize, you know, witnesses, potential witnesses, people who are working for the judge because that might intimidate them and distort the legal process.
So it might seem like a violation of the First Amendment. But the First Amendment is not absolute. We've talked about this before. You know, you can't communicate about something that is going to be part of a criminal conspiracy to murder somebody. You know that that kind of speech is not protected because it's
part of a crime. And also not permitted is a speech that disrupts legal proceedings because it's been ruled ountless, countless times over the hundreds of years we've had this country that it is more important to protect the sanctity and safety of the legal proceedings than it is to allow people to say whatever they want, both in the courtroom, but also outside of the courtroom as well. Doctor
Paul Levinson, we'll let that be the final word. We want to thank you for being frank of course, with your intelligent conversation always, Paul, You and I could go on lot couldn't wait that I love being frank because it's the only way to be well. Thank you, Neil. We got to cut that out for a promo somewhere you know. Of course, we offer special thanks to our listeners who take the time to give us a voice in their lives. We offer fresh topic every week. We work hard at
bringing you fresh news. We try to make it topical like today's program was. We also have some fun and with some interesting social issues, etc. So you can check us out wherever you get your favorite podcast that includes Apple, Spotify, your iHeart radio speaking all the rest. Check us out on Hudson River Radio Facebook page. Like us, leave us a comment, and you might also consider sharing being frank with others. Of course, I like to leave you with two things. One is one a slogan, and then
some music. And that's why I also love having Paul on because I don't have to I don't have to search for any music because as a musician, he always brings his own music with him. We'll get to that in a minute, but first, here's a quote from Leonardo da Vinci that I think you'll all appreciate. Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence. So Paul, what are we gonna listen to? What are we gonna close our program with? This is? This is a song called the Lama will be late this
year and I wrote it with Ed Fox. He wrote the music, I wrote the lyrics, but he actually came up with the title because one day I was over his house and we were sitting by the piano writing some songs, and he pointed to a newspaper and he said, is this a great title for a song? And basically it was the headline the Lama the Dale Lama will be laid on his journey. This year has absolutely as how we
sat down we wrote this crazy song. But in a way it has relevance because the song is about the delay in the bringing of good tidings, which I think, unfortunately describes our current world very accurately. Perfect for our engineer and Neil Richter. I'm your host, Frank Lubona. We hope you to join us on our next being Frank, We're the only way to be is Frank in Italian, molto morde sempre. Much love always everyone. We hope to see you next time. Thanks Paul, Thanks Neil, See you guys.
Hey, pull pull, what's ama? What's is it a camble? What is it? It's not camble, it's it's a person. It was a long time ago a distant country called to bet No he was. He was a man with a long white bear, and every year he used to come down from the snowy hills. He used to bring the kid's presents and food and flowers and everything, and everyone really had a good time. And but one day he disappeared. Having him nobody knows where he came again.
But years ago I heard this old story from a from a man man. Nobody knows what his name was. His name was Hawaiian. Yes, visiting volcaps in the studio, somebody you know play a tape on the machine that was able to work specially machine. And when he played the tape to heard the story about the lama. But how did the story going. Well, I'll play a tape for off right now we're just here'll go. Here's it
takes children? Don't you know that time you've been waiting a day for the sun comes outside it he's the mold load and people love cut such long time I seen flo be a come. Maybe you don't want any more? Alma will waiting this year? The lama will be late this year he's been heaven. No ways say wait will be rain next year? After doing those the snakes they have wait this year it's time running again. It's not round time. Maybe that's some next week. Let's just keep on spending to let you
wait for his man to the loma will be night mess you spend. I know where the stay you, I said, said my man go stas men going to bolsh. Love more likes you, yes here love more. We like this, Yes you love lives like lass that masses like last from Living Wife, Anything Right sp Hudson River Radio dot com