Hey everybody, welcome to the Jeff and Casey Show. That's right, we're on day 7 now. What is the number today? Seven swans swimming? Six swans swimming. Probably a sports swimming. More birds, oh man. You know, I hate a bird. I hate a bird. They drive me crazy those birds. I feel like whoever made up these serious gifts was one of those people who's like, they didn't have a lake house because I tell you what, you grow to hate every bird out there.
I was going to say they're one of those people who's a member of the Autobahn Society and none of their friends care about birds at all and they keep getting presents from them that are bird related and you're like, dude, you're the only person, no one even knows what this thing is that's a gave him. We don't know it's a goose, we don't know what the fuck it is.
I was thinking about that the other day, my grandpa who was like a Republican in like the 80s and stuff was a big, was a big ducks unlimited guy. And so I remember him being very into conservation and like public lands and all that and that's so not a Republican thing anymore. We've moved completely away from that. It's all been pulled out in the most awesome way. Anyway, everything goes swirl around that. It's always really bizarre.
There's no real consistency to political, like American nominal political positions. It's always weird and you're like, wait, what are you guys, oh wait, but you used to not, okay, and that happens so often. It's ridiculous. You played those 20 question things on the internet where you're like, you know, they ask you vegetable mineral and then they ask you a question. You know that game.
Yeah, like when they saw the little toy, basically all they're doing is trying to find the single question that splits the group. So you get that funny thing of like question 19, is it a comic book and you're like, no, and then 20, it's like, it's a microwave. What the fuck? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what I feel like politics is now is like trying to find the little totems that just freak people out to mobilize.
It's almost like we want to find the things that aren't necessarily policy or whatever, but get people to the polls because that's what's important. Yeah, well, I mean, we're in a weird zone. We're in an endanger of going massively off topic again at this point. Well, this is the Jeff and Casey show and I said, it is, okay, but the reason why is there's something related to this coming up here, which is our regulations that we're going to talk about.
What I was going to say there is like, I've definitely thought a lot about that, much more about that recently than I had previously because I feel like most people in the Trump years have felt, I think, increasingly like exacerbated in their politics, right? Like people are really historic. Yes. That's my laptop's going on. What is going on? I don't know. I thought that was street noise and then I was trying to ignore it. I'm going to, you know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to set it down to like power saver. All right. So I can't. It's going to go off at the minute of the cast. So I think it's like the web browser, right? Well, you know what that is. It's like it's all over. No, no, no, that's doing Bitcoin. That's doing Bitcoin. You know, it's definitely doing Bitcoin. So I got Bitcoin hive, apparently.
Well, it's going to be, actually, I've had the opposite experience really with the, with the recent stuff, which is that I just, I think it's going to be a lot of things that I just more realized that I, I sort of realized that I really just don't like people. Like, like, the, because I used to not like people a lot. And then I think I liked people more when there was less, when they talked less. I see. When they were. Yeah, yeah.
Because you can, you can kind of imagine that other people, if other people happen to be for something that you're also for, like, let's say, you know, you're back 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, actually, to pick an example for, for my past. You're for gay rights, but that's not a very common position at the time necessarily. It's more marginal. You assume that other people who are for gay rights arrived at that conclusion because they thought it through in a similar way that you did.
Okay. Sure. However, if you're someone who doesn't think things through in the same way that most people do, which I have long realized at this point that I don't, right? That's not the case. So you come to a bunch of erroneous conclusions about who your friends really are in terms of not friends. Like, hey, this is my buddy. Allies are, yeah. Like you and me are something.
I mean more like who your people who you would count on to make similar decisions about public policy is as you would, right? Right. So mostly what I learned from the Trump era is that I have no friends really at all. Like, most people don't care about the same sorts of societal concerns that I do. Yeah. I'm a very, I'm a very rule of law kind of person. Like, I'm a programmer at heart. Right. I am a rule Follower. Yeah. I'm a systemic person. Like, if you want to introduce something.
Absolutely. You know, so relatively simple things that other people have a lot of mixed emotions and fights about are not confusing to me. I have a very straightforward answer to the mutually, like the Punch and Nazi thing, right? It's like, for me, there's no, it's only rule of law. You either have the law that you can punch or you don't. Yeah. And if you decide it like you could even come to me and say, I want it to be okay to Punch and Nazi and not to punch someone else.
And I'd be like, well, okay, you got to give me, you got to give me a definition of You've got to give me a definition of Nazi that a court can apply. And then I could make that rule, right? And I always think, this is how I always think this. I'm like, how are you going to codify the thing you just told me? And if the thing you told me can't be codified other than, well, I think it's okay, then I don't agree with you. I see, okay. That's just how it works. In my brain always.
You can just, you don't even really need to ask me. I mean, some of you do, because maybe you don't want to bother thinking it through this way, but you know, you can simulate how I feel about a public policy issue, usually by, can you coherently state a rule for this thing that you want, and will that rule have any obviously deleterious effects? Right? Like, is that rule going to lead to something really bad? Because you can state a rule, and it could be a pretty bad rule.
Like, you know, we want to burn all children, right? Like, we want to light children on fire. I'm fine. That's a rule, but I don't like it. I just got off a very long flight. And I'm totally bored. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, like, I'm not saying we're going to necessarily pass it, but I want to have the debate, because at this point, and I'm not even saying we have to burn all of them, but the ones that are about to get on my plane. My plane. Yeah. So we want to work on that.
We can walk it through. Yes. And that's another thing that's pretty clear about the rule following thing is it's like, you can't put someone's name in there. So you can't say we want to burn all children on just flight. You can't go. Oh boy, that would be so handy. It has to apply to all persons, basically, right? One of the things of society is if you get a citizen, it has to apply to everybody, not just Jeff. That's like one of the rule of law things, right? Right.
Anyway, that's definitely been the case. Now I just assume I'm like, you're, forget it. I don't even know how society functions if people really can't understand these basic concepts. That's how confused I am about most of this shit. I'm like, what are you talking about? Like, of course, you can't do these things. They're obviously broken.
Like, you could maybe work on them a little and get to some more sensible statement of your position, but your current statement of your position is ludicrous. Like, it doesn't even, I couldn't even write this into a law if you asked me to. That's how fucking broken it is, right? Well, so this brings, since we're going to gentle, let's just keep bending this. You can bend it even further, which is, we separately, and I can't remember when we were talking about this.
It wasn't on a podcast, but we were talking about the fact of founding fathers making these rules. Like, trying to set up these rules that are based on the fact they were getting fucked by England and all this. Oh, you and I were talking about this. And then one of the things we talked about was the problem with news today.
And I think it was you that brought up an interesting point was if the founding fathers were today, there would be rules on the velocity of, remember, we talked about the velocity of affirmation. Right, right, right. Of like, that's actually problematic now, is that especially in the way that news organizations are paid right now, it's better to be early than right. And in a world now where we're like, all right, we're rebuilding, we're breaking off part of America into America 2.0 or something.
Right, right, right. And you're coming up new ones. It is certainly some way to monitor the, because when we talked about this, you brought up the fact that hey, when you have printing presses, you have an inherent speed limit, right. Their speed of light is as fast as those machines and the people that can hand them and we don't have that anymore.
Well, I think, I mean, I don't really remember the point that I was making exactly, but I guess if I had to reconstruct it, it would be something like, you know, one of the primary concerns in any sort of, whenever you're trying to create systems that allow humans to function as groups because they don't normally, like normally humans can't function in large groups. They can't do it, right. Like, you can't just take 100,000 people and dump them on an island.
It's, you know, you probably get Lord of the Flies or something like this, right. You need to slowly build these structures that they can inherit too, because, you know, inherently your brain is hardwired, maybe for like 100 people or 50 people or something, right. And that's interesting. It's hardwired. You can, if you're just with a few people, you guys can work it out.
Like, naturally people who have, you know, more leadership will start creating orders and the people who naturally start following them. And you'll organize probably into something relatively effective. Maybe there'll be some headbutting depending on the mixture, but, you know, it probably will work out not horribly, right. But eventually you get to a size too large and you get the sorts of things we get in human history, you know, wars and all these sorts of things will happen. It's bad, right.
So you're trying to create structures that, you know, create more prosperity and less conflict over time, right. Right. And so one of the things that's very important in these sorts of things, obviously, is the speed at which you make decisions and evaluate those decisions as important. Because, I mean, if anyone who's ever been on Twitter for 15 minutes can tell is that the faster people do something, the stupider they are, right.
And part of this is that, you know, usually you can, usually if you let something sit for a while, your emotions will reaction to it might cool off and you're left with an ability to look at it a little bit better maybe than you were originally. Yeah, we'll do something. In the first 24 hours, you're just like, you know, and even something fairly, fairly horrific still does taper over time. Like nobody feels as visceral a need to avenge 911 today as they did the day after.
So no matter how bad the thing actually is, it definitely wanes over time. And your likelihood to make a good decision is somewhere in there. You probably don't want to forget the thing entirely. You don't want to forget entirely that 911 happened and you don't want to have a no response to it, right. But you also don't want to have your first response to it. Because those are both going to be errors. Yeah. So you're looking for some place on the curve there.
And so I feel like much like they designed a lot of safeguards to prevent the government from acting quickly, except in really extreme scenarios when it had to, like it being attacked. I think they would have tried to figure out a way to prevent sort of mass dissemination of information that may be highly erroneous or intentionally fabricated. To that end, I'm sorry, I'm going in a long time. I tried to hear this not helpful.
To that end, I also think that modern media maybe gets a little bit worse rep than it should be. Not because it's good. It's awful. It's terrible. But because I think we have a better opinion of old media than we should. So people tend to look back and they remember, I think I mentioned the Washington Post's Watergate reporting, for example, in the previous thing, right? We remember the really good parts. We go see spotlight. And it's great. Obviously, all the President's men in is great.
We don't remember most of the yellow journalism stuff as what we think of when we think of old reporting. Or like trying to criminalize marijuana or trying to intentionally start wars with Mexico, or who knows what you pick random events from history? Or I mean, the Leo Frank trial.
I mean, anything that you couldn't go back to and look at how newspapers handles it, there's just as many examples of them being devious and underhanded as there were them, quote unquote, shining a light of truth on anything. And so I feel like the media is something we've never really gotten a handle on. And in the old days, maybe it had the benefit of not being as instantaneous. Yeah. Nowadays, we're just seeing you ratchet that up.
I don't think the quality got as much worse as people think it got. I think we're just seeing the speed effect. There's definitely the speed thing. You see some of the speed even in, we're watching, there's a documentary on the Menendez brothers that killed their parents back in the 80s. I don't think I'm familiar with this. Yeah, it's just two brothers that killed their father.
And I remember it because it was kind of in that thing of like it was one of those first big press things where there were just people spotted up covering every little thing all this. It was like, baby Jessica fell down the well. Yeah, kind of thing. But it was like, oh, these two very wealthy kids killed their wealthy father. And I very clearly remember what my imaginary, what my memory of the spin was.
And when you go back and if you watch the documentary, which is not a good documentary, it's just as yellow as everything else about it. But they're pointing out something that is absolutely true, which was they obviously killed their father. No one is denying it. Okay, okay. But they were spun as these spoiled little brats. I remember they were like, oh, smirking and all this. They were just everything about them. They were tried in the press. You know what I'm saying? All 100% that.
And their defense was also a defense in the time, which was that their father abused them. It's actually abused. Yeah. And that wasn't even disputed by the. Okay, so that just, it was not just. But it was a different time. So we all were like, oh, boys sexually abusing. Oh, it was, there were jokes about it. And now when you see this now, when they talked to other family members, this was like decades of abuse of this horrible, they still killed their father.
But like you're like, oh, this was completely different than I thought. Completely. And this would the exact same trial now would be spun just as crazy, but the opposite for the salaciousness of a father being a molester. So anyway, it was just funny of like, oh, no, we still had that then. I sort of remember that being earlier on the terms of TV journalism versus like, you know, a baby limber, which was all the newspapers, selling newspapers.
But this was one of the first TV things where it's like, oh, it's exploded and like all day long there's, you know, updates on the trial and stuff. And all, you know, what, six years before OJ where it went, bananas, yes. So yes, I can see your point that like, there hasn't always been great journalism anyway. Well, and yeah, the one I mentioned there by through and kind of aside is the exact same thing only much earlier. So the Leo Frank trial is newspaper only.
There was no television this is long ago. Right. And that was a Jewish guy who was from New York who ran a factory in Atlanta. And he was, you know, by anyone's estimation at this point completely wrongly convicted of killing a girl who worked in the factory. Okay. It's because they did not like him, right? He was a symbol of like, you know, Jewish people from New York coming down to Atlanta to run things or what.
Like it was, they just exactly like you just said, they made him out to be some kind of thing that it was not even remotely in the story as it existed in reality. They just invented this other story that's what they wanted to tell. And even you had sort of different papers saving different takes on it. So much like today where you've got, you know, the Huffington Post and Fox News or whatever, saying wildly different stuff about the same thing.
They just picked the story that has almost no facts. It's very similar like, and so you can go back in history and see that this is what's happened traditionally. And, you know, I don't know how you fix it. But thinking of it as a modern problem, there are modern aspects to the problem, but it's not a modern problem. It's an always problem. It's an always problem, but just it is the problem, however, of yeah, weaponizing that first emotion is definitely a thing.
And they're using mostly their weaponizing that for clicks and sharing and all the other things. Yeah, but it can also be used for other, but yeah, it can also be used for terrible other things. Yeah, well, again, I always feel like it's worth looking at these sort of in-ereers because it's very tempting. Human beings have two ways that they end up doing certain things, right? If you want to broaden the categorize it. And we only tend to look at one of them.
We've talked about this on the podcast before. The only one anyone ever thinks of, because they always think of themselves as having an autonomous amount of agency. They always think of it as like, well, this person thought I would get more clicks by titling this thing blah, right? You know, Trump reads something and does something.
You know, we put it in this phrasing and cast it in this negative light because I know our readers hate Trump versus another paper that looks at it and goes like, oh, I say like blah, tax Trump, even though he's right or something is what happens on the other side because they know their readers like Trump or something. Right. So they are playing those two sides or something like this.
And that is one way humans do things because certain human thought certain humans have enough meta thought that they're doing those sort of actions. Other times it's not that way. It's just natural selection in the sense. There are people who, who they firmly believe the Trump headline they wrote is accurate. Okay. Do you mean the author of that? Author of that thing? Okay. They are not manipulating the news. They hate Trump just as much as their readers.
Yes. And they believe they are reporting the truth or doing a good thing by reporting it fairly erroneously. Right. I think so. And those people naturally get selected because they get more clicks. And so you didn't, there was no nefarious. That author was not nefarious. They're just the same as their readers. Yeah. I think that's, yes, I get that part.
But there's also the meta share problem where people will tend to write the headline that, that like so on like an RSS feed or anything in the modern news, not RSS is bad example, but like any Yahoo news or whatever. Or it's just a big scrolling thing like that. Yes. Um, they're, they're aggregating other news. Yeah. And you, if you click and read the news, you feel like, all right, this guy might be wrong or he might be ready. Right. But he had, this is what he wrote.
Yeah. The little snippet that Yahoo puts the top link is actively like we're trying to get you to click on this and feel like that. Again, just trying to point out how those processes can work. So there's two ways those processes can work. One is you find someone who's actually nefarious to do this for you. Right. Right. And I agree that could be happening. I don't think that's what's happening. Okay. But wait, yeah.
Another way is let's say I had, let's, let's just, I'm just giving you a thought experiment. Yeah. Let's pretend we had known nefarious humans. If they don't exist. Yeah. We just, that's not a thing that we have anymore. Brains can't do that. But I still wanted to create this and I am a nefarious alien who can be nefarious, right? All I have to do is just get a bunch of random humans, have them running the headlines and whoever gets the most clicks like keep and everyone else I fire.
Eventually, I'll get the Trump Exaggerator guy on whichever side I want it. Right. And I'm done. It's just natural selection. It works whether you have nefarious humans or not. Yeah. My point is they're not nefarious at all. Okay. They're just, this is my job. I am hired to put this bit on here. And yeah, who the news is a particularly good one because they'll link to the same article twice with both things. No. And if I like log on to my computer versus my phone, I'll get the opposite. Oh, man.
So they're definitely running a B on the thing and just try. So they're, they are, they are the alien running. Yeah. So they don't, so they don't need. I don't need to. I don't think that's even nefarious. Maybe they have their job. It's like if they have Yahoo zero, it's like a neural network. That's just being trained to make salacious headlines. Yeah. So, the, uh, uh, clickbait. Right. It's going to be bad.
Well, let's go into the British, uh, that since we're talking rule of law, let's go into the, that when we're trying to codify some of the things that humans do and don't do that we want to either encourage or discourage. Okay. Yeah. Uh, so yeah, you know, I guess that's true. This is a good example of something that appeals to both the salacious mind and the attitude that I was describing earlier, describing earlier, the, the really wanting things to be codified, right?
That wanting to have a way of explicitly, yes, if I may, defining how something should be adjudicated or how it should be identified. Right. Right. And, uh, at the article you're referring to here I pulled it up is porn websites in the UK will be banned from showing a huge range of sex acts under proposed new law. Okay. Now, new law is not true anymore because remember we've been on the salitis for a long time. So this is actually a year ago.
Okay. So are they, Britain is also going under kind of a right wing renaissance in terms of, uh, like, like, like, like the United States is. So is this coming from the conservatives or is this coming from the liberal side who wants to take better care of the women who are usually exploited in this? Or are we talking about people who are sex or bad people?
Or is it, um, well, you know, I feel like I am not, you know, because we don't, for a lot, I'm not going to use the term, we don't need deep research on the Jeff and Jason. It's just a light comment show. It's not, you know, we try to get a source of quality news that I don't, uh, suggest that we are. All right. So we're just going to focus on the rules here. What I was going to say is so I don't know the intent behind that. I do not know the intent behind these laws.
However, what I would say is, um, I don't really think I've ever heard of any substantial movement anywhere ever that was large enough to get a government to do something about something that wasn't puritanical for the last time. I have never heard of anyone who was strictly concerned about sex worker rights, getting people to pass a law banning certain kinds of, like that just doesn't go anywhere. Well, no, I mean, I have a counter example there.
Well, in California, they mandated condom use in pornography and all the pornography left. Well, no, but it is something where we're like, all right, we're going to put rule, external rules on the industry that is coming from a place in a liberal place. That I totally agree. But I'm talking about not allowing things to be shown. I see. I don't know of anything like that. Maybe there has been it. All right. But I don't know.
So in this article, which I have not read, I know the title because we discuss some of ours. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what are we talking about here? Do they get down into like, are they just going to be like, we're going to take the PornHub Home category page and block out certain categories? Or are we talking certain at what are we talking? Yeah. So I mean, one of the things about this is that unfortunately, it's well out of my, if I may use the term incorrectly, jurisdiction, jurisdiction.
Well, my jurisdiction because I only know U.S. law. I don't know UK law. All right. So the things we're going to read in this article, I have no way of contextualizing the for you. I do not know how UK law works. I only know UK law to the extent that our law is based on their common law. That's what I know about it.
Well, I want this to be men in that round room that you see where they're all wearing eggs yelling, saying very personal attacks on the other people and then yelling and then everybody claps and yes. So this, I want to see them discuss this. Well, and also, I would point out that recently, again, I don't follow really anything that happens in Britain. But I do know recently that it was a major news headline following this.
Okay. It couldn't have been many months after, six months after, something maybe after this law was because this wasn't, this was just getting brought up in November 2016. So here we go. All right. The, shortly, it's actually going a few months after this.
One of the main cabinet people or something, I don't really know, like I said, I don't remember, it was just fleeting, actually got in sort of a lot of hot water for having a ton of porn on his parliamentary computer, his work computer, not his home computer, right? And recently, just that's NSFP. Yes, not safe for parliament. Right. All right. He didn't look at that tag and then clicked on it. Yeah, yeah, I think NS, NSFHM maybe not safe for her majesty. I think they would probably quantify it.
Yeah, the Queen likes like exclusively anal actions. So she doesn't want to see. I feel like if you go full Britain, like British royalty, yeah, you go straight to the insass section because the right guy said, right, we don't even bother with any of the other sections. All count on all stepsisters. Second, you got a point there. But no, yes. No, so he recently had to step down. Okay, he was a, he was actually supposedly a close.
I guess I want to use the term ally, whatever you call someone who is a political, in a political alliance with Theresa May. Okay. He recently had to step down over these porn allegations. Right. He of course claims that they're not his porn. Oh, yeah, yeah. Right. I don't know how those got there. Right. Which, you know, the only thing I think that probably is if, if, you know, my porn director is a different director. You were looking at different, you were looking at someone else's.
I don't know who was that probably my sister. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Anyway, this bill is was a little bit for that. And what it says is a new bill will, if successful, ban huge swaths of sex acts from UK porn. Okay. The digital economy bill always, always appropriately named. Right. That's one of my favorite. Yeah. You know, nobody tried to put their own pet stuff into that bill. No, no, no. There's not, there's not a bridge bill somewhere with digital economy porn bill.
Yeah. The digital economy bill with, with notable spires to be erected in Wales for, you know, housing records or something. I don't know. The digital economy bill looks to ban anything that wouldn't be allowed on a commercially available DVD. Now, I don't know what that means. Yeah, me either because you can put anything on a DVD in the US. I think. Yeah, I don't know if you can't. That seems to limit adult content in a number of ways. Banging things including female ejaculation. All right.
And the site of menstrual blood from all pornographic videos, which to me, and I don't know, but to me suggests that somewhere there is literally a bill in the UK that passed that said, if it's on a DVD, you can't show these things. Right. Right. So I guess maybe they're using the brief of a fetus. What do we mean by menstrual blood? Is it just if it was involved in an actual childbirth, it is, it has to be just menstruation period, non pregnant.
That's kind of an amazing restriction to from a vagina, but just blood as far as menstrual blood is bad. Right. Oh, right. Yeah, right. Because I have what a medical training film. I mean, what there's a lot of things that would involve blood that come out of a woman in a natural way. Right. But you could. But I mean, what did this bill say? Right. I don't know. But anyway, so that's two of the restrictions. Female ejaculation. While there are no blood.
That's an interesting, that's a banana cake. Well, there are no strict guidelines as to what acts and images can't be shown on commercial DVDs. Right. Adult film producers have found that they have had to cut almost all kinds of non-conventional videos from their films. Such restrictions include, and I'm literally just reading this now. Okay. It's not me. I'm not embellishing this sentence. All right. I love this. Such restrictions include the quote for finger rule. Unquote. The four fingers.
For instance, which limits the number of digits that can be placed into any orifice while on video. Okay. So that's already. That's already a rule. And then there just is already a rule. So you can own so they can't show any fisting or any of that stuff because they can't get over the fifth finger. They can show fisting. But there's only four fingers. Well, they can show fisting if it's like an amputee. The thumb. If the guy doesn't have a thumb or the woman does. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right.
If the fist ur does not have all five digits on a hand, go nuts. Yeah. I don't think that would stop any pornography. I just like. All right. Yep. We just cast a call. Yeah. People with missing one finger. Yeah. For shampoo commercial. The British board of film classifications. That's abbreviated to BBFC, which probably means something to UK person. I've heard that. Okay. Number four. Guidelines giving non exhaustive list of all the things that will be accepted in our 18. So this is a positive.
This is a white list, if you will, not a black list. Right. The regulators highest restriction and the one that all porn shown to users in the UK must now satisfy. All right. The includes rules about quote penetration by any object associated with violence. Unquote. Okay. They also have been any sexual act deemed quote obscene. Quote. Well, under the obscene publications act passed in 1959. That doesn't sound good. That does not. No, 1959. Right. Yeah. Adult film producers and act well.
So basically anything racist is fine. Probably right. Yeah, 1959. You're in the sweet spot of racism. Yeah, anything that says the word boob is probably right out. Adult film producers and activists have complained that such restrictions place huge limits on the kind of sexual activity that can be displayed in so constitute a form of censorship. If porn sites show any videos that were more extreme to UK users, then they would be then they would be breaking the law according to the proposed bill.
It wouldn't ban those websites from hosting the material, but they must not ever be shown to anyone in Britain. So if you did an IP filter. Oh, I see. Or requested that the user warrant the fact that they are not from the UK. You could just go right ahead and stream that to these filthy Americans and Australians. Right. Who does have like a colony people. Who have like a British accent fetish. Yeah. For their porn. That's totally fine. Right. That you can do.
So you can what they're saying is you can make it. You just can't show it. You can make it and show it. Just not to our people. Not to her majesty's loyal subjects. Now so if an American firm made such films and it got streamed, that's not allowed either. So who would they hit? So here is the end. This is no, but this is exactly where things are where I can't help. So I do not know how UK law handles. Ingress of traffic. Like I don't think they're great wall of China style.
Yeah. So I think you could go ahead and stream all five fingers all day long to give you. Because I don't know what grounds they would have to stop you. Right. It's just they're trying to put this on the British filmmakers. It seems like it does not seem to be a restriction on the telecom. Which means that you could carry US porn involving as many fingers as you want. I mean, you get two hands in there if you think you can. Right. But they are, you just can't do it yourself.
They're cutting, they are putting these restrictions on their producers of porn. Not their porn. Right. Well clearly, it's just causing import export in balance. It's an arbitrage situation. Yes, exactly. And people need to exploit that. So one thing I was thinking. Oh, I'm thinking these people all of these. Whenever you have anything more than the, you know, I know it when I see it situation. Yes. You get specific. Yes. You get these crazy.
Like the four finger thing is so because you're like, well, wait, obviously there are people who single finger would much be much bigger than somebody else's four finger situation. So you have this terrible problem now. Yeah. Where. Yeah. It's the new three fifths compromise. It's like you can have three fifths of the digits that a person has. Right. We'll constantly. Well, it's also. And you also are going to want like people with big hands.
Here, we want big handed people to be like, look, we only get the is four. Maybe four is unallowed and three is good. The four finger rule meaning I don't know where if it's a greater than or a greater than or equal to, you know what I'm saying? Well, I think it said that didn't it? No. We might have to search for the right. It just said which limits the number of digits. It doesn't say whether four is in or out. We'd have to go read.
I mean, really what they should have said is the digits when you like put a ruler around them. Say I feel like to see BBFC. I'm just going to type it in. We're going to see it guidelines. For R18. That's what it was called. Right? R18, I think. Let me just double check that that is. So that is their X is R18. R18. Okay. So I'm going to type BBFC guidelines are 18. Yeah. I'm going to see if it's got that in here. You'll four finger. So let's see. I'm going to click on the.
It's a PDF which seems promising. I mean, that's like what they were getting. So many. Yeah. R18. There it is. It's on page 24. All right. The manual. So I'm going to just jump right there. Let's see. Is this going to work fine? Let me find that. What PDF of your using your. 24. It's just the one built into Chrome. I think. All right. So there it is. 26. 23. Okay. So it says. R18 is to be shown only in specially licensed cinemas or supplied only in licensed sex shops and two adults only.
Okay. This is X similar to in the US where there are restrictions on who could get into these at a normal theater and. Yes. However, which no longer really exists. Well, what I was going to say is. I would also point out that it sounds very much like the US laws. In that there's no real law. It's more like a industry agreement. Yeah. Because they don't want there to be a law. So they just agreed to police it. Right. And not let you into theater.
Even though there's no law against you going into theater. Right. Right. They also got tired of mopping up. They got tired of cleaning out. Yeah. The following content is not acceptable. Material, which is in breach of the criminal law. So that makes sense. Material, including dialogue, likely to encourage an interest in the law. Material, including dialogue, likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity, which may include adults role-playing as non-adults.
Okay. So for example, you could not. That's interesting because. You could not have an adult playing a child in a situation where something nefarious was going on. It sounds like. Right. It also sounds like incest would be not allowed. Well, if they're both old enough. Oh, okay. Right. Right. So, the criminal could mean father is 40 and. I thought I thought incest is criminal still. No, maybe not. All right, continue. This is a. Yeah, that could be in the UK. I don't know. I don't know.
Their whole monarchy would be out if it was though. No, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, we got serious problems. The portrayal of sexual activity, which involves real or apparent lack of consent. Okay. Any form of physical restraint, which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent. So, for example, the ball gap. Yeah, the gimp is not allowed. Right. I would assume, put from pulp fiction. Unless they have a wink or like a little. Yeah, maybe a safe wink.
Yeah. The inflection of pain or acts which may cause lasting physical harm, whether real or simulated, some allowance may be made for moderate non-abusive consential activity. So, like somebody who might as a fan of spanking is basically what we're. But no more than that. No. Penetration by any object associated with violence or likely to cause physical harm. So, for example, I suppose a gun, even though it is not going to cause any physical harm if it is tiny or something. Right.
It is associated with violence or go that would be out. Right. I would assume. All right. Meaning it does not have to be causing any harm or violence at the time as long as associated with violence. Right. I think. Okay. I don't know. I'm trying to interpret that. No, no, no. We're trying to, yep. So, I'm trying to interpret that as a little bit more abuse, which do not form part of a clearly consenting roleplaying game. So, here we're sort of saying roleplaying is all kale of us on it.
Yeah. They're exempting that. Because all of these… I would say most of these things they've described are some of the most popular things on… Well, we weren't even American porn sites of just like it's what you get. Although, previously you were saying ReelTur porn was… ReelTur porn and you saying LA houses are in your problem with this? Well, but it seems like you can do that one though.
Well, the real right but no, but most of them are humiliating our Humiliation based where they're like you haven't paid your rent and so now Yeah, it's all threats of that certainly that's like a landlord. Yeah, that's what under yeah, that's you get both into that particular subsection, so those are all pretty nebulous, but seem to outlaw most most anything you would probably call fetish
Yeah, would probably be pretty tough on there. Yeah, however, I don't see I mean, I'm just looking I don't see the four finger rule anything like what they were talking about here maybe I'm missing it but You know a lot of the rest of the stuff is talking about like appeals and things like that
I don't see a four finger rule. So I guess we just don't know why don't you type in finger in T into the search if there's a search and see Yeah, and see if that comes up or if that's all right, well then that's probably just a different document We don't know about yeah, or maybe it was one of those other ones that they mentioned like the old or maybe our UK are UK Legal listeners can be like no, no, no, it's it's more that's like could be more of like a a
a case law situation where they have previously ruled on three fingers and the court did not act upon it Whereas four fingers they said that's that's just too many it could be here's like a webpage on the Obsidian publications act of 1959 Which may also be a legal source for these I'm not sure But this was the thing they mentioned in the article right and I can look to see if that's got the finger thing It doesn't appear to okay
Um, so I don't know you know, maybe you know, maybe this is just fake news. Yeah, good maybe this is fake news
Maybe there is no I don't know yeah, right? I don't know where these things well It also just could be one of those things in practice is what way came off yeah, and Yeah, it is it is funny whenever you try to get into a situation where you're Outlying something versus Allowing things yeah, you because you get into weird situations like three versus four which don't yes on on the surface
Make any sense, right? Right? Well, there's a lot of stuff. So this happens a lot of times in us law, right is Sometimes there are rules You know classification systems that are written into law so there'll be things where they literally say like okay Something is considered a bank to bank transfer if it satisfies these You know criteria for purposes of this SCC regulation all right
So that's the test for whether things are banked for things in the law you can read it. It's there right other times It's case law based so Congress says something like You know you can't do blah blah blah trying to think of I can't think of example offhand
But it's like Congress says like no one shall have a haircut that is too ridiculous, okay, right? Yeah, but Now a court has to decide what a ridiculous haircut is right right and sometimes they can just throw that law out Like by saying it look it's face-to-angle as we can't enforce like this law is just not gonna fly you right throw it back Congress they're gonna have to you know either rewrite it or it's not in effect right other times they come up with a test
So may I have something so when the court says that they're saying this law is Unconstitutional that's how they throw it back or they can throw it back and say it's just not really We can't apply this until you fix it. Do you know what I mean?
There's there two ways of pushing back or is it oh you just like throw the whole lie out period Yeah, I mean, I don't know what how that works in practice in so this gets down to I can give you a vague idea of how that happens But this is the kind of thing that you have to probably actually study law to really answer 100% accurately Okay, because one of the problems with only listening to law getting Is that if something is a
Derriger activity of a clerk okay or something it will not be discussed. It's just no. Oh, I see it just happened I see I see so you know if if you So for example one of the things in the things trying to get something called void for vagueness doctrine Which is a specific specific doctrine that involves saying that a law is not gonna be enforced Uh, by the court. It's not going to be recognized by the court because it's too vague. Okay. That's the thing that actually
Right, right. I don't know exactly what void for vagueness. I know when they've invoked it right don't necessarily And so I know the big outlines of it right but I don't necessarily because I haven't got to law school I don't know right what the actual textbook definition of this void for vagueness doctrine is Because unless I actually found the actual case when I was listening to cases sometimes I do go all the way back Because they have the oral arguments for it Um
Where you can actually listen to it. I don't know like I don't know was involved in that when there's a doctrine like that Mm-hmm, and I don't mean to use that one specifically but just in general. Yeah. Does that come from That that comes from the courts trying things and then slowly settling upon A litmet test that we then just use from then on to save time um, it's often not slow
So it's often a rather quick now courts aren't quick ever in that sense in that it had to start at a lower court and bubble up and bubble up and bubble up and bubble up and bubble up and bubble up through all the appeals to the Supreme Court So it's not fast in the we did it you know We had a problem on Friday and we solved it on Saturday, right? But it's by any way, but it's usually like well the Supreme Court
Saw this yeah, and a lot of times they rule on it right? So it's like after several months of them deliberating in chambers They should they come out with the test right and so they that that introduces both the test and also settles whatever the The court case they're trying now so a lot of time you don't have to push it to the court anymore because now you can just apply that rule
Then from then on more or less. Yes, and then if the Congress wants to fix that then they pass a law that says something else That might they may or may not be able to it depends on whether the uh what the court decided was constitutional or not So there's there's many functions. This is called like so that whole
We're now in court lands. Yeah, that's just why I'm gonna talk forever. Yeah, sorry um So basically if you look at the way things are structured uh, what what you're looking at in that branch of government is called article three
Uh, it's article three of the Constitution, right? Okay, so article three courts are the things that are specified by the Constitution That are curing all of these things and adjudicating these things right and Something has to slot into article three of the Constitution in order for them to
Ever put on over all right, so for example You can have things that just lie outside of article three of the Constitution and a court may arrive at a conclusion that they simply cannot rule on it Right, okay, however There's a huge number of things that are within article three of the Constitution and so when you talk about a Supreme Court case It is not always they are not all the same kinds of decisions some decisions under article three of the Constitution
Made by the Supreme Court are deciding issues of constitutional law meaning they are proclaiming what you literally must do Unless you amend our Constitution to try it, okay? So that is the very most powerful rule that an article three court can ever issue Right is saying this is the law of the land period and nobody but us can ever change it. I see okay, and they can do that they have that authority, right?
Um, and in that sense they are the supreme arbiters of the law of the land because no one may challenge them right the only mechanism in our Constitution for doing that is impeaching a Supreme Court justice I see right right so when they hand down an article three but another constitutional ruling yeah, that's the end of the story However, they are often and much more likely called on to do something much less than that
They can rule between two parties. Okay, so simply there is a dispute you and I have an argument that Eventually gets out of hand and it goes all the way to Supreme Court No constitutional issue involved they are simply adjudicating a dispute between two parties and they are in this is just the end of the appeals process is that the appeals process? All right, and in order for it to make it to the Supreme Court
It has to be about something procedural or legal it can't be about facts usually. Oh, okay Once in a great while some really weird shit can happen and then it is because they figure somebody smart is already looked at the facts and made a call no Okay, it's not their job
Okay, that's they're okay. The Supreme Court's official line is that the appellate process is not there to relitigate the facts of the case I see fact finding is for the court of original jurisdiction They do their fact finding I see if a Supreme Court Adjudication is going to look at facts. They're going to be facts that are informing the nature of the effects of their judgment Not the judgment of the case right, okay, right So for example in a Supreme Court case you may have facts
Quonon quote introduced by Amika, which are friends of the court people writing in say for example Justice Bartlett Jeff Roberts submitting a Amika brief because I'm an expert on small business software Whatever as a small business owner who has you know massively affected the industry of
Something here's my opinion on this subject and here's the data from our company about how this would really negatively affect us That could be considered a fact right and it is taken into account potentially in their proceedings It's not a fact about the case right right? So it can't be about whether Joe Smith shot the gun that killed You know mayor or Sue or something right that can't be what it's about in a Supreme Court case. There are not thing It is not the normal things where you're like
Objection and like take that out or strike that it's not that kind of court. Oh, oh, right. Right. Yeah. Okay. So it's just looking okay I see what you're asking um appellate courts do not function the way Perry Mason function
Okay, so what you're talking about there is a jury trial right there is no jury in the Supreme Court So basically once you once you finish with your trial court proceedings which they just get this big stack of documents correct Basically the the appellate courts that hear it from then out are not
Prosecutorial in nature. I see so you can think of it more as petitioning in front of the magistrate I come up and I state my case right I sit down right you come up and you state your case and you sit down They say thank you very much and they don't argue right the the side that goes first right
They are allowed five minutes They get some rebuttal they might have up to 10 they are allowed to take some of their time and move it to the end Oh, I see but they don't get extra time right so you each get 30 minutes say for the Supreme Court
And I think you can reserve up to 10 it might be only five wow of rebuttal time And in that case the next side goes and then you get those minutes okay It's customary to do this and everyone always does if they can okay I don't know that it actually helps but they do right so When these cases move up the appellate chain all of those cases are not the Perry Mason style They're only the style of I am getting up one lawyer right no the defendant or or
Well, they're not even called that they're usually called petitioner and respondent okay, because again, it's they're long gone It's not yeah, it's there's no defendant. There's no Prosecutor in that sense. It's petitioner and respondent okay, and why this is important is because it does the original case May have the sides may have been flipped So for example, let's say I go to court originally right Uh, yeah in the case where you and I are suing each other okay
Um, and you did something and I sue you so I am the prosecution and you are the defendant right in this case right um After this trial concludes if we seek appellate reviews or asking a court to review it It could be either of us who wants to review if I'm in the case I'm the prosecutor in my case I'm probably not gonna review it like maybe I want to appeal for some other reason but it's rare right you lost the case
You want it reviewed you're like this case was bullshit. I shouldn't have lost. I was right here for all these reasons So you are now the petitioner you are petitioning the appellate court right to review the case But you were the defendant right right okay, so I brought the case to the original court But you brought the case to the appellate court and then you can slip as many times as you want right
Right all the way up right so when you get to the Supreme Court the person who's the petitioner may not have been the prosecutor in the Right right right, that makes sense okay. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway I when these courts case got up there. They're very stayed proceedings. They're basically like present the sides sit down Because that's that's down right the people who do the objection and the interrupting and all this other stuff
Been way lost justices. Oh, interesting. They are interrupting each other and you and And asking for clarification. I see because they are I mean it there They're the now when you're talking four fingers. Are you talking like that kind of right? And it depends on who you're talking about they all have their own styles right um and uh, you know From Clarence Thomas who never interrupts. He accepted it right really Very specific scenarios right the the myth that he doesn't talk is not true
He's talked like three or four times right okay? Um still very few times very few times Uh, what you could say is if he does talk either he's going to make a joke or you really pissed him off I see right Like he really felt like something wasn't addressed right So there's two times I can think of uh like one time uh was a cross-burning case I mean he's he's was the only black justice on the court at the time right and he like
Objected basically. I mean you didn't say objection, but he objected to the fact that cross-burning was referred to in a very nonchalant fashion by one of the lawyers Right, so make sense there that was kind of touchy issue potentially right other case was he's a very very much originalist kind of uh of uh uh uh of a judge he
Thinks about things that's like you know what literally with James Madison. They've wanted have done here. I see not what would James Madison if brought it to say have done right right But literally what would James Madison rule at the time right right he might have thought right which is great because you can imagine The founding fathers trying this stuff. Yeah, just their minds explain like Female what what are you talking about? I don't know sometimes I give him more credit than that
Sometimes I think they would have just been like how do you guys do that now? All right Yeah, I know that's stupid like I don't know. I feel like some of them are dynguses like founding fathers is a bad turn Yeah, it lumps a whole bunch of very different people into one category. Yeah, absolutely. They were all men That's true. So fathers might be appropriate
Um, but you know, it's like they are very different people. So it's kind of you can't you know who would do what is very Nebulous anyway, but anyway, that's the way he thinks about things So the other time I remember him jumping in was uh someone had not addressed The an issue of taking away gun gun rights from somebody Um and as you can imagine someone who's an originalist Gun rights very important. Yeah, I mean the founding fathers were not
Wishy-wash on whether you could own a rifle. Yeah, yeah Uh, and so he had a problem with someone uh That the none of the other justices had really asked any questions about taking away this fundamental right as part of another thing that was going on and he Wanted that clarified so right very end of the oral arguments right at the end. He said
Let's be clear tell me about this. Yeah, I see so he does jump in on occasion But anyway, most of the most the other justices all have styles of jumping in and they will jump in um You know the brief overview is like Sonia so to my or will just jump in any damn time she feels like it and ramble forever her uh Her come you know sort of comrade and arms and this is justice briar who will do exactly the same fucking thing
They were like made for each other. They both just ramble on about this thing and it's like Or you're gonna get to the fucking question if like a person who gets up and asks question at the end of a gdc lecture Right, there's Neil Dorsuch who's new he asks extremely specific textual questions like okay, right very brief Right there's Samuel Alito who's just annoyed with you
As far as I can tell like almost all the time. He's just a grumpy old man pretty like pretty much There's um John Roberts who's the chief justice and he is usually asked just a reasonable like nice sky question
Like as much as I could say like he's he's the most cordial person I've ever heard on the court. Okay, pretty much bar none all right Like I don't know who else like I can't think of another person comes to mind There's Ruth Bader Ginsburg who usually only comes in when she has something specific to ask and then there's of course my favorite Who's Elena Kagan who's like the best justice ever who like only comes in to ask important very useful questions
I would say that actually Neil Gorsuch is pretty close. He's so far. He's been pretty good on that front Hmm. He is just taking ideology out of it. I'm just like justices right right because obviously nobody who doesn't think about things in terms of logical processes He's ever going to think of Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch in the same Well, he writes a very different idea like come you know, one's not many by Trump's right about bomb a very different right ends
What's the right I'm looking for a pedigree there, right? Do you think they're getting better in the terms of As As these things get harder and harder do you think they're getting? No, well, so for example like probably my favorite and least favorite justices are Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor both nominated by Barack Obama I see I would say yeah, and so and both recent yeah, and I would say I They are the one you don't like their decision-making
I don't like their thought processes. I see well. I should say I really like Atlantic Hagen's thought process I really don't like Sonia Sotomayor's I see um I feel like Sonia Sotomayor is really far on the wishy-washy emotional. This is a nonsensical thing you're saying I don't feel like you're following the argument like I just don't feel like she has a hold on it
And Elena Kagan's the opposite she's always on top of it. She's like Cutting through the crap and going look here's what we're talking about
How are we going to do this like you're saying these things? They're not adding up like make them add up for me or I'm upset with you right and it's exactly how I like to think about things right now Those are my personal opinions other people want different things and adjust this right everyone has their own opinion about that So other people might be exactly flipped they might think of the Atlantic Hagen is too robotic or something
But I love that that's what I want to hear right. I want to hear somebody use taking passion out of this and thinking how are we going to make laws that work Right. How are we going to make this system work? So if they only each side only has these 30 minutes yeah What if they don't have enough information to make a decision? Do they ever have to say like all right? All right, we're going to go ask a lot more questions of you come back Well, you know, or can they do their own studying?
What you the way you can think of this is it's I mean other than the fact that the oral arguments are awesome because they provide me my podcast entertainment
Yeah, right. I mean that's that's what I get out of them right because I'm not a legal scholar and I have no effect on the court So me listening to them is purely entertainment right um Other than that you can almost think of as a bit of a formality It's not really important what happens here because they have stacks and stacks of collateral documentation that they're going to go through
I see they have holes each each one of them. They're looking hundreds of pages of shit regardless of what's said I see each one of them has a staff Who will do research for them all day all the time right and these are the best legal minds in the country Like the most prestigious thing you can have on your resume when you go to apply for a one is right I clerked for an accountant right I clerked for Neil Gorsuch whatever right right right right I clerked for Supreme Court justice and
That is if you are a law student who has any ambition if you can get that job you will you will apply for it right right So so they are picking from everyone they could possibly want will be on their team. I so you know One thing that I think is underappreciated about the Supreme Court Is definitely that they do a fuck lot of work a lot more work than congressional people do
When they work on a bill I see it's not like in congress where half the people haven't even read the bill and their staffers Haven't even read the bill right it's definitely the case that Every single justice pretty much even the most dingus justices have read the bill I've read the bill have read the materials and more to the point all of their clerks have read the supplementary material You know not every just going to read all 70,000 pages of amicus or whatever right because not feasible
But they have picked through it they have looked up the laws and in terms of the sides they're on they have gone back to the case history To see what supports them one doesn't they're not ignorant and they're not taking it lightly right So let me ask one question since we are getting close yeah, how do they decide so you have all this stuff You have the other thing which is they decide whether to take it or not
Mm-hmm. Is that do they all vote on that together or is that how does it get to that? So basically If I remember correctly and this is again one of those law school procedural questions And not only law school procedural question because I bet if you asked a lawyer they wouldn't be able to tell you But I see a constitutional or Supreme Court law scholar you could ask and tell you this it's easy law. I just don't know it
My understanding is it's something like four justices have to agree to take it. I see I see So a minority has to agree that the case but they don't read the 70,000 pages first They're just like oh this seems constitutionally important or this Again, something yeah, yeah, yeah, right. Yes, but they've I think it's something like four justices
I don't quite remember how that goes. I see But you know, I shouldn't even say it Let me just say that I'm pretty sure if four justices agreed to take it it would get taken yeah whether there are other ways You can take it out of no and there's also a bunch of other things like I think Supreme Court Justice are assigned per circuit So like if a appeal comes up from the ninth circuit a certain justice has the ability to
Stay it potentially without someone else doing like there's a there's a bunch of procedural rules that I don't know I guess is that that that's the takeaway That you could easily go for in fact I could know them in 10 seconds We could go looking up for me. It's easy law. It's not complicated. You just have to go read what it is And I don't know it right but no you don't have to have five out of nine say we're gonna take it
You can have a minority say we're gonna take it and take it right guys. Yeah, all right Yeah, and sometimes they'll avoid taking cases Even if they want to take them because the case isn't right yet, right? Or they don't want to decide something yet um that can happen and So in the case of the UK thing which is completely different set of rules and everything yeah What they've done is just turned their pornography business into mostly for the the I wouldn't even say
Extreme pornography with the fringer pornography. Yeah providers. They're just gonna have to go international with that They're just gonna have to get it out there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and honestly, I think the British accent helps Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I think I think there's a I appreciate that you look a little UK flavor Yeah, but well to me as an American yeah, even the lowest You know what a British person would say that person
You know their version of hearing like uh hurt a hot like a you know ding-ding kind of situation. Oh, okay, okay You saw a Southern like yeah, where you're just like oh, this isn't yeah, where we just immediately classify that person is like oh Jesus right specific Southern accent. They're just Florida man. Yeah, right?
That I mean they have that too particular accents. I'm sure I'm not and yes Glass we assume mean yeah, yeah, yeah, that's the exactly what I think about because that podcast you still listen to yeah All right And so but that doesn't I don't have that line so for me I see a porn or it's British accent. I'm just like this is classy Because it doesn't matter so it could be it could be the you know in in the British mind the trashiest British accent
Yeah, it would still be high class for you because you don't know. Oh, yeah, it's like oh boy I assume yeah, I don't know yeah, so so in that regard. Yeah, it's probably doesn't I mean it probably bothers him a little bit in terms of yeah Yeah Local production stuff, but like I assume that if there even is a market outside Yeah, then inside for any definition absolutely here's another question for you right if there's a market for I don't know how that works
anymore nowadays since it's all free. I don't know where the I mean I'm gonna make something up here that I don't know if it's You're not but for example, let's say that a fairly Reasonable chunk of the Indian market, which is massive. I mean they are a very popular country if they have some old like UK like
Colonial fetishes. Yeah, they could serve that market for example just fine. Well, I also like in the middle of porn red coat Raking to song And then a line where they're all doing the synchronized dance and then that it keeps panning back to more people dancing Which is generally the Bollywood reverse pan shot of like more and more than pretty some old cities dancing now if my porn Happened that way and they're all naked singing and dancing a five day. Oh, I'm all over that'd be great
Yeah, that'd be fantastic cast of thousands. Yes. I'm I'm don't so down for that. Well, what I would say is yeah It seems like that's you know, that's really all they've done here is just made it so that their porn producers are going to look Asternal which presumably they should have been doing anyway. Yeah, the UK is not a large market compared to the world right so yeah And porn not really that language specific like you know people are not coming for the brilliant dialogue probably
I'm guessing so it feels like you don't necessarily need to worry you could sell porn to China You could sell to India other large population centers That's certainly the US obviously yeah, yeah, yeah, in fact the more different the better probably because Yeah, it's exotic you want to mix it up right whoever is the UK people would be Right, I've seen four fingers way too much there you go I want to see somewhere where the limit yeah, you know because sometimes constraints KC
Right, that's a good way. It's all about the constraint. What can you do with three fingers? Yeah, I want to see restraints in this case right yeah, all right, so we have put the rest right like that we mostly talked about the Screen Court in this porn one yeah, which which feels which feels Appropriate somehow it does all right though this was Wait, wait is this this is not geese. This is seven swans of salt swans of swimming right was that seven judges of
Oh, I don't know I don't know. I don't know if the Supreme Court's ever had seven justices on it may have at one point accidentally All right everybody well if you want KC to rule on your dispute If you have any Supreme Court questions for KC right if you have and you don't care if they're like only half answered because he says something like And we have to go to law school to know the answer to this and he doesn't then right in right to podcast
at Jeff and Casey show.com all right and then tomorrow we are going to do a day eight of the 12 days podcast Yes, that's right and we will catch you then all right. All right. Thanks everybody