Social Media and the First Amendment

to block users on Twitter. So in this episode, I'm going to tackle the very complicated issue of social media, free speech, government communication, and more. And this is not going to be a political episode in the sense that I am going to espouse a particular political philosophy. So in other words, I'm not going to use this episode to argue that one political outlook is better than any other political outlook. That's I'm not interested in doing that

on this show ever. So Rather, this is about the concept of free speech and why the digital age has made it an even more complicated subject than it was before. And it was already pretty thorny, So this is sort of an unbiased approach to it. Now I'm going to start off with the actual news story that prompted this episode, and then we'll dive into a deeper look into the First Amendment before he transitioned to the complications of applying

that concept to social media networks. It all stems from a lawsuit that was first filed on July eleven, two thousand seventeen, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs were Twitter users who had been blocked by Donald Trump on Twitter after he had taken the position of President of the United States, and it meant that they could no longer see what he posted, nor would their messages be visible to him.

The Night Institute at Columbia University would represent this group and argue that this amounted to a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The judge in that case found in favor of the plaintiffs, saying that yes, this is a violation of their First Amendment, and then the government filed an appeal and this case then went to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,

and that court upheld the earlier ruling. Now, at this stage, the government may either drop the matter and presumably obey the court, or it may appeal to the Supreme Court, which would be the final arbiter in matters of justice in the United States. But the Supreme Court in the United States here's only a small percentage of all the cases that are submitted to it. It's submitted thousands of cases each year, and it will hear something like less than three percent of all the cases that have been

submitted to it. So there's no guarantee that the Supreme Court would choose to hear this case, and if it did, there's no guarantee that it would find any differently than the earlier courts had. So the ruling says the president and presumably any elected official cannot use social media to communicate matters relating to government activities in any sort of official way and still block citizens because that infringes on

the First Amendment rights of those citizens. So now let's start breaking down what all this means before we get into how it's really complicated in the digital age. First, for those not versed in the Constitution of the United States of America, let's have a quick civics lesson the constitution. Is the basic foundation of law in the United States. It is the bedrock upon which all other law is built. Should a law be challenged in court to violate the Constitution,

the court is to strike down that law. The body of the Constitution includes seven articles that lay out the basic structure of the American government, and they cover such things as the three branches of government. That includes the legislative branch that makes the laws. That would be the Senate and the House of Representatives. Then you have the executive branch that executes the laws and access commander of chief in chief of the Armed forces that would be

the president, vice president that group. Then you have the judicial branch that well judges, and they're the ones who actually decide if laws are constitutional or not, as well as decide the individual cases federal cases that come up in courts. And the other articles lay out the basic rules that bind states together and establish where the federal system fits in with the state system, as well as the procedures for the government has to follow to amend

the Constitution and to ratify it. So that's the basic document. Then you have the first ten amendments to the Institution, also known as the Bill of Rights, and we're only concerned with the First Amendment, which reads as follows. This

is the actual wording on the Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to a symbol and the and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Now we need to get a few other things out of the way. The First Amendment only applies to the public sector and the government's

role in those matters. So, according to the U. S Constitution, no government in the States may restrict or deny a citizens speech or right to redress grievances. Now that's not to say a private sector company couldn't do the same. So if I have a business and own some land, and I create a whole corporation, I can to some extent tell my employees or even customers that certain types of expression are not tolerated. This is what allows social

media platforms to take action and ban users. The First Amendment protects against the government violating freedom of speech, but it doesn't protect against Facebook or Twitter taking away your ability to post on those platforms. Now, this too has limitations, since there are other laws, such as anti discrimination laws, to make it illegal to act in a discriminatory manner,

even in the private sector. So if I said, people of a certain religion, we're not allowed in my space, I'd be violating anti discrimination laws, even though the First Amendment itself wouldn't be a factor because I'm not a government agent. I'm a representative of the private sector. But the anti discrimination laws still cover that particular UH arena. So further, in court cases, judges have determined that the

free him of speech in itself has limitations. It is not without its own restrictions, which sounds like a contradiction right freedom of speech with restrictions. Well, you have to think about the specific cases. So, for one thing, you could use your own freedom of expression to restrict someone else's same freedoms, such as by intimidating them into silence or otherwise harassing them or being a problem. So things like threats are not protected by the First Amendment. You

cannot make threats to people and claim First Amendment protection. UH. That is not protected free speech in general. You're not allowed to use freedom of speech to harm others. In order to get whatever it is that you want. They're also not allowed to make claims that you know to be false, because that's fraud. Uh. Similarly, you can't make claims about people like in libel or slander. It's where you defame someone using untrue or uns stantiated information. That's

not protected by free speech either. Now that's not the same thing as saying that it will always be punished. It could be punished, but it isn't necessarily going to be punished. Really, it's just saying that if you were found guilty of acting in that way, you could not

claim the First Amendment for protection. You couldn't say it's my freedom of speech to say these things if in fact you were found guilty of committing libel or slander, or, as a well known and frequently erroneously attributed phrase goes, the right to swing your arm ends at the other man's nose. The rights of one person cannot be interpreted as such that they infringe upon the rights of another person. So you do have rights up to the point where you could, uh, you know, act in such a way

that you're not causing harm to other people. But if you start causing harm to other people that's not within your because that would be a violation of their rights. Okay, So the First Amendment states that the government shall not restrict expression, and it further states that Congress cannot restrict the rights of citizens to quote petition the government for a redress of grievances end quote. These are important concepts that come into play with the legal rulings around Twitter

and other social media platforms. The next complication we need to look at is the nature of social media accounts. So Donald Trump has had his Twitter account since March two thousand nine, which was many years before he became president of the United States. So when he established his Twitter account, he was a private citizen. He wasn't a member of the public sector, and as such, as a private citizen, he could block anyone he chose, just as any other user can for any reason he or she likes.

This is not a violation of the First Amendment. As a private user, just because people have the right to say stuff doesn't mean you're obligated to listen to it. At least if you're a private citizen, you're not you can ignore it. And we all know how communication on the Internet can quickly become little more than a flame war or worse. I'm sure many of you out there have, at some point or another blocked someone in an effort to preserve at least some sense of sanity at one

time or another. I know that I have. Now, if Trump had refrained from using his Twitter account to communicate matters of official government business, perhaps this ruling would have gone another way. Now, it's impossible to say for certain it would have gone another way. It requires a what if scenario, and that what if scenario did not happen.

If Trump as president had operated his Twitter account as a private citizen and not included anything that remotely lated to his official capacity as president, it would be hard to argue that he violated anyone's First Amendment rights by blocking them. This would assume a total separation of Trump the person and Trump the president, which I think would be challenging to argue, but I am no expert on

that matter. However, the courts have stated that the way Trump has used his Twitter account since becoming president has an overwhelming amount of evidence that it counts as presidential communication to the public. As such, he cannot block members of that public from being able to see or respond to his messaging. As the First Amendment states, he can't prevent citizens from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

Since he uses Twitter to communicate government activities, including such stuff as hiring or firing members of his staff, intended changes to policies, or announcing executive orders, he has constant atitutionally obligated to keep those channels open. Now, this is an issue that goes beyond Trump. People from both the Republican and Democrat parties have had similar cases brought against them.

The Secretary of State for Alabama, guy named John Merrill, had a lawsuit against him still does have a lawsuit against him from plaintiffs who argue that his blocking them on Twitter constitutes much the same matter as Trump's case, though Merrill disputes this, and that lawsuit has seen no resolution as of the recording of this podcast. In two thousands seventeen, a Virginia District Court judge ruled against chairwoman of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors, h Phyllis Randall

is her name. She had banned a man named Brian Davison from her Facebook page after Davison had left critical comments in the messages when she was talking to voters.

Randall had argued that this was her personal Facebook page, it wasn't the official page for her as in her role as chairwoman, but the judge stated that she clearly was using it in an official capacity because she would solicit comment from the voting public in her posts, and therefore she could not exclude members of the public from

that activity. Very recently, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasia Cortez has been sued for blocking Joseph Saladino, a YouTube personality who is currently seeking office in the United States, and she blocked him on Twitter. Saladino's argument is that the same rules that apply to Trump have to apply to all elected officials. Now, when we come back, we'll look at some of these issues a little more closely and talk about the difficult landscape we now find ourselves in. But first I'm going

to take a quick break. I'm going to guess that most of you listening to this podcast have spent a decent amount of time on the Internet. You've probably all heard the common wisdom, never read the comments. You know that the Internet, while it can give us access to entertainment, information, channels of communication also facilitates trolling, hate speech, harassment, all

sorts of unpleasantness. The old adage of ignore them and they'll go away hasn't proven to be very effective, particularly in an age where some people will go to such lengths as do sing, digging up and then sharing private information about people, or swatting in which a malicious person would give false information to law enforcement officials to initiate what amounts to an attack on a person's home or office.

It can be an ugly world out there, and there are lots of different reasons why these things happen, and I'll have to have a more in depth discussion about that at some point, about the psychology of trolling and the culture of trolling and what enables it and what feeds it. But that's a matter for a different episode. The reason I bring it up here is that the ability to block or ban people is for some of us what makes it bearable to even use the platforms

available on the Internet in the first place. And the courts recognized this as well. And here's where we encounter one of the many sticky points that are hard to resolve. Before the break, I mentioned the case of Phyllis Randall, the politician in Virginia who was reprimanded for blocking a voter on her Facebook page. Now, I should point out she only instituted a twelve hour ban, and the judge

in the case took that into account. And the judge also stated that quote government officials have at least a reasonably strong interest in moderating discussion on their Facebook pages in an expeditious manner. By permitting a commenter to repeatedly post inappropriate content pending a review process, a government of official could easily fail to preserve their online forum for

its intended purpose end quote. So, in other words, a politician has the right and arguably the responsibility to at least block or delete certain comments that pop up because they may not be germane to the matter at hand, or they may be meant to derail the discussion or even attack other people involved in that discussion. These actions would quote impinge on the First Amendment rights end quote

of the other folks who are using that forum. So now we're talking about a case by case basis issue, and elected official can't ban a voter from participating in a public forum, even if that public forum is the officials own social media account page, whether it's on Twitter or Facebook or whatever, So you can think of that as a private platform, but a public forum. This is

another issue that is a problem here. But the official is allowed to moderate comments, but that means the official has to be able to determine whether or not a comment counts as being relative or being disruptive. Now, we need to remember that elected officials, despite occasional evidence to the contrary, are human beings. Some of them are awful people. Sure, some of them are wonderful people. Some of them may not show their awfulness or wonderfulness in their capacity as

an elected official. But people, as a general rule are not super happy when other people disagree with them. Some of us, and I'm including myself in this particular category, I can get a bit huffy about it. Now, later on, when the initial and often irrational reaction has settled, I will find myself acknowledging them maybe, just maybe I was wrong.

That's not a fun realization, But I wish it were one that would occur to me earlier in the process, because it could have saved me from some nasty exchanges that I otherwise could have avoided. I would have ruffled

fewer feathers, and I would have strained fewer friendships. But what I'm really getting at is I could easily imagine myself being in one of these situations in which I post something as an elected official, and then I see a dissenting opinion worded in such a way that I consider it an attack or an insult, and so boop,

I delete the comment. But I can also imagine that later on I might cool down and realize, you know, maybe the comment was worded in a confrontational way, but ultimately that was a voter expressing a point of view that's different from my own, but it's no less valid

than my own. So I imagine that for at least some people, being able to be objective and separate the critical comments that have validity from the disruptive or insulting or irrelevant comments can sometimes be a challenge, And to those people, I suggest you get a social media manager who isn't the person directly making the statements, but rather

connect as a more objective judge on the matter. Goodness knows, I wouldn't be able to do this for myself, and this is one of many reasons why everyone should be glad I am not a politician. I also want to acknowledge there are plenty of remarkably cool headed people in politics who can handle this sort of stuff a billion times better than I can. So if an elected official in the United States uses a social media platform in any capacity related to their office, they should, in theory

obey these rules. On Twitter that can get a little tricky. There are verified accounts, which are great because you know for a fact who you're dealing with, since Twitter has verified that the account belongs to a particular person, and you could say, oh, this is actually a citizen, this is someone I cannot block. This person they are sit is in. I'm elected official, this person represents one of my constituents. Uh, they either are voting for me or

against me, so they need to have this channel. But there are a lot of accounts that could be dummy accounts or bots, or even foreign agents attempting to sow discord and chaos and more. There are troublemakers who just want to stir stuff up, either because they have a specific agenda that involves derailing a politician, or because they just get a kick out of being a nuisance. And then you've got the truly toxic stuff out there. People

who threaten, intimidate, insult, and harass mercilessly. These are behaviors that wouldn't be tolerated in public spaces in the real world, So how do you handle it in the online world. Well, one thing that could happen is the platforms themselves could step up and enforce some of the rules they've said are in place. Twitter representatives occasionally talk about forming new rules, while several critics have in the past pointed out that

new rules weren't necessarily needed. Rather, what was needed was enforcement of the rules that were already in place. But I do want to be fair to Twitter. One of the issues the service has had is that it's hate speech policy was previously only applied at the individual level, So if someone were to direct hate speech at me personally, Twitter then could step in and intervene because that would

be a violation of Twitter's policy. However, if someone were to attack a general group of people, like a specific race or a religious group, but was not targeting a specific individual that was not covered by Twitter's policies, it wasn't explicitly against the rules. So the company has since revised those rules so that the hate speech rules have a more broad application. The platforms, being the private sector and offering a service, aren't bound by the same restrictions

that the elected officials have to comply with. I've used this analogy conversations with friends. So imagine for a moment, then,

an official government facility. Let's say it's a state legislature building is actually built on private land, and you are the landowner, and you've drawn up in an agreement that gives you the right to close that land off to anyone you like at any time, and somehow no one really noticed or objected to that clause, and it was all signed in the agreement, and then one day you just arbitrarily decided to shut off access to the legislature building,

and you prevent lawmakers from going to work. It's a rather implausible example, but it's kind of similar to what we have with these social platforms, and that raises some alarm flags or red warning flags. I guess I should say not alarms flags can't alarm very much, but red warning flags to the minds of people who see potential for problems in the future. With this, now, I can't imagine any reality in which Facebook or Twitter makes a move to completely remove a government account or the account

of an elected official. You could make the argument that the elected officials themselves wouldn't be allowed to do that either, because it would be equivalent to destroying the records of public discourse on official matters. So if you happen to be an elected official and you've created a Twitter account, deleting that Twitter account could be a big problem because there's going to be records of communication with actual constituents

in that account. But the social media networks are in the private sector, so they're not bound by the rules that the government is. They're not likely to act in this way because, for one thing, these are companies operating and headquartered in the United States. Both Facebook and Twitter and others have been active with lobbyists to try and shape policy that favors these companies. It would be a bit counterproductive to take such an antagonistic stance against the

government of their home country. Banning individual users who aren't government officials is a little less controversial, though most social platforms aren't keen to do that very frequently either. If Twitter figures out an account is a duplicate and is spreading disinformation or being used to attack people. It can ban those accounts, and it certainly has banned plenty of empty shell accounts that were created simply for the purpose

of boosting follower accounts. But in the case of those empty accounts, this was an easy call because they didn't represent real people and they were creating a fake sense of influence. Celebrities who had millions of followers saw those numbers reduced dramatically in the wake of these bands, and that suggested that a large number of those followers weren't

real people. But making that call was easy. Going after troublemakers appears to be more difficult, or at the very least, the platforms seemed more reluctant to take action in those cases. Part of that might be due to a fear that taking action would result in a backlash against the platforms. Now, in an ideal world, from the point of view of a company like Twitter or Facebook, the platform would remain unbiased, objective,

and hands off. It wouldn't interfere at all. It would just be a place for discussion, free of responsibility for the content of those discussions. Hey, it's not my fault if hate speech is going across this platform. I just made the platform I didn't make the hate speech, but in the wake of various controversies involving misinformation and manipulation,

that position is largely untenable. Now. There has been a fear among organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation also known as the e f F, that the courts could find that a private sector platform like Facebook or Twitter could be viewed as a public forum itself, and thus the First Amendment restrictions would apply to those platforms as acting in that capacity. But in June two thousand nineteen, the Supreme Court of the United States made a decision that

appears to alleviate that concerned somewhat. The case was one in which a nonprofit organization was essentially hired by the City of New York to operate public access channels in the city, and a bull of producers created a film for those public access channels, and that led to some complaints against the producers, and the nonprofit organization disciplined the

producers as a result. The producers then sued this nonprofit organization, claiming that their First Amendment rights were being violated, and this prompted an argument over whether the nonprofit should be held to those standards. Is it at all relevant with the First Amendment and h on its own. The nonprofit

isn't a government office or agency. It's a nonprofit organization, but it's not it's not related to the government, but argued the plaintiffs, since the nonprofit was working on behalf of the city, and the city is a government agency, it should be held to the same rules that the government is. Now that could also apply to social networks. They are not created to be channels of communication between

governments and their citizens. They're just munication channels, period. But the Supreme Court had ruled that the nonprofit was effectively a surrogate for the government. The same could be argued for Twitter or Facebook. However, the Supreme Court didn't rule that way. The five conservative judges ruled that the nonprofit did not constitute a governmental agent and therefore the First

Amendment rules weren't applicable. The liberal judges, by the way, ruled the opposite way, arguing that the nonprofit was in fact effectively a government agent in its role of overseeing public access channels. And I could see the merits of either side of this argument. It's not that easy. It's not It's not something that I could quickly make a judgment on I would really have to think on this,

and it's complicated. Moreover, I can definitely imagine how big a mess it would be if the ruling had gone the other way and all online platforms suddenly could be bound by those restrictions whenever any elected official or any government agency was making use of those in official way. It's a pretty tough, complicated issue. Now I have more to say on the matter, but first let's take another quick break. Let's get back to the concept of blocking

folks on Twitter and how that relates to politics. I want to be fair to the judge for the original case against President Trump, because the judge recognized that there is another option besides whether or not you can ban someone, or whether or not you have to endure an enormous amount of abuse because you aren't allowed to ban or block anybody. The judge stated that officials could mute people on Twitter, not block them, but mute them, and muting

is different from blocking. So when user A blocks User B on Twitter, not only will user A no longer see any posts from user B, whether they were directed at user A or not, User B will no longer be able to read any of user a's posts. It will be as if each user appeared to stop existing in the eyes of the other one, at least on Twitter. And that was the crux of one of the arguments was that if Trump blocks voters, they can't see what

Trump is posting. And if Trump is posting in an official capacity as president, and those people are voters in America, that violates the First Amendment. But let's say User A dozen't block User B. Instead user A mutes User B. In that instance, user A won't see any of user b's posts because they've been muted, but User B will still be able to see all of user a's posts. The judge stated that this would be like a real world setting in which a politician addresses a crowd and

chooses to ignore someone who is speaking out against that politician. Yes, the outspoken person has the right to be part of that public forum, and yes, that person also has the freedom of expression, but the politician isn't obligated to actually pay attention to it. Now, I appreciate that argument. It is a little more complicated than that, though, because of course, in the public setting, the politician would still be able

to hear the person who was protesting. They might not give it any acknowledgement, they might not pay much attention to it, but they'll still be able to hear it on Twitter. If you mute someone, you never hear anything from them again. So it's not the same thing at all. Right, it would be as if you were suddenly able to effectively tune out the frequencies of the protester in that public setting. So I'm not entirely convinced that this is uh a legit argument, but it is what the judge found.

So according to that original ruling, officials at the moment still have an out on Twitter. They can mute voters, they just can't block them. So that might work for Twitter, but it is a different story on Facebook, where moderation is all all about making sure someone isn't trying to undermine an entire discussion. Twitter exchanges are more like overhearing a few people talking at a party, rather than someone

standing on the stage and talking to a crowd. As it is frequently the case with legal matters that revolve around the heart of a country's system of laws. There have been battles involving some pretty dark stuff that have really tested this subject In two thousand and seventeen, the Supreme Court weighed in on another case involving social media and First Amendment rights. The case was Packingham versus North Carolina, and the crux of the story again, it's pretty darn dark.

So in North Carolina, the state government passed a law that prohibited convicted sex offenders from being allowed to access social media websites. The state argued that social media enabled and facilitated the very offenses these people had been convicted of in the past, but the Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment and that it would

effectively criminalize is a lot of otherwise legal activities. In that decision, the Court stated, while in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places in a spatial sense for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace, the vast democratic forums of the Internet in general and social media in particular.

Now that argument has prompted some people like David L. Hudson Jr. Of the American Bar Association to call for a re examination and expansion of the First Amendment with regard to the digital space. Hudson argues that platforms like Facebook and Twitter have the ability to manipulate and sensor public discourse on a level equal to or perhaps beyond

that of government agencies. That the First Amendment is not expanded to include such platforms, that these protections guaranteed by the Amendment will be moot because everyone's going to be communicating in those places and the Amendment doesn't apply there. So he says, we've got to change that. Now. Obviously that's not a point of view that everyone shares. Not everybody thinks that these private entities or entities in the private sector should be held to those restrictions, but it

does show how this concept is really complicated and thorny. Recently, after I recorded a short radio segment about this subject, the producer for that segment suggested something I thought was really interesting. He suggested that perhaps we'll see a future in which social media networks create special verified accounts for government use only or government used to the public, and these accounts will by default have certain features disabled on them,

such as the ability to block a Twitter account. Presumably, these accounts would have some sort of indication akin to a verified Twitter check mark, to let people know they represent actual official government accounts, and I certainly see the value in that, though even with such a system in place, it would still be the responsibility of the public officials to make certain they weren't using their of have it accounts in a way that could be seen as part

of their public role, or else they would be held to the same restrictions. Now, from a personal perspective, I do think that if you are in a public office in the United States, and if you operate one or more social accounts in a way that is meant to engage with the public you represent in a way that relates to your public role, you should not be able

to block people from seeing what you post. I can't imagine a scenario where you could hold a public forum but then say, oh, but these members of the public aren't allowed to hear or see anything that happens in there. Only this other select group of the public will get that privilege, because if it's a public forum, it has to be public for everyone. This matter, by the way,

is far from settled. I'm sure we'll continue to see complications in the digital space regarding the freedom of speech and the government's responsibilities in that space, and will probably see more actions like the time departing Twitter contract worker on his last day at Twitter set into most in the deletion of President Trump's Twitter account. You might remember when that happened. Now. In that case, according to the departing employee, he did it as sort of a gesture.

He didn't think it was actually gonna happen. People had flagged Trump's account as having violated the terms of service of Twitter. So this former employee, just as before he was ready to clock out for his last day, initiated the process needed to delete Trump's account. And he had stated he never thought it would go so far as to actually happen, that somehow there had to be protections

in place to prevent it without further authorization. So he did it as sort of a symbolic gesture, thinking nothing would happen. But it actually did end up deleting President Trump's account, though only temporarily. It's these sorts of actions, by the way, that lead to advocates arguing that the social media networks have a huge responsibility to those who

utilize the services. Hopefully, this episode has highlighted how challenging this issue is, and for people outside the United States, illuminated some of the arguments behind the whole thing and why it's such a big deal. Um, I'm not entirely convinced that there is a right way to move forward. I think no matter what we choose, it's going to be a solution that is not going to be satisfactory

for all parties involved. I think the courts have ruled in the right way, and I do think it should apply to politicians across the board, not just ones that are of one party or another. Uh. I also think that we have to have some means that they can take in order to avoid being, you know, attacked. Politicians are people too. I don't know how many of you out there have had to withstand online attacks. It is never a pleasant experience, and it can be really, really demoralizing.

It can certainly create real sense of trauma. I have friends in the space who have had real hard times dealing with this stuff. I've been pretty fortunate. I've dealt with a little bit of harassment, but nothing on the scale of some of my colleagues, and that's not even being a publicly elected official. So there needs to be a balance. Obviously, social media is going to continue being a major communications channel moving forward. It's not likely that

we're going to see people back off of it. But I honestly don't have the answer to this. UM. I think that we're making steps in the right direction, but I don't know that we're ever going to come up with the perfect solution. But what do you guys think? And if you have any suggestions for future episodes, you should reach out to me and let me know about those. You can email me the addresses text stuff at how stuff works dot com or pop on over to our

website that's text stuff podcast dot com. You're gonna find links to where we are on social media over there, and uh, I promise I probably won't block you. You will also find an archive of all of our previous episodes and a link to our online store, where everything you purchase goes to help the show and we greatly appreciate it. And I will talk to you again really soon. Hext Stuff is a production of I Heart Radio's How

Stuff Works. For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the I heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.