Aaron Cariotti
speaker
76 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Dec 2024
last heard Dec 2024
Aaron Cariotti’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
If you do engage with them, realize that you're not actually going to persuade or change their mind, but you can do that as a demonstration to them. the onlookers of maybe a different way of engaging in public discourse and different set of ethical principles that you're trying to advance and so forth.
So those are the folks that I think we're really trying to reach, the people who are sitting back quietly just observing and listening and trying to get their bearings. We need to be a voice in the public square. And I say we as though I'm always behaving virtuously and I'm never prone to mass formation myself. I mean, all of us are vulnerable to these things.
All of us are vulnerable to being wrong. So also the epistemic and intellectual humility to recognize that we don't have all the answers and the stance that I have all the answers and I'm one of the righteous rather than just another flawed person imperfect, you know, sinful member of the human species. I think that's, that's important as well.
Yeah, I think that's right. And I think Whenever I speak, assuming that I am not infallible and I could be wrong and I want to maintain an open disposition, which feels vulnerable. I mean, intellectual certainty provides some sense of security. That's why people seek it out so fiercely and cling to their ideas so fiercely.
And so to be able to let go of some of that security and just, I'm open to being persuaded. I'm open to being convinced and let's learn how to have civil dialogue and debate.
Well, so that's that's a great update. And just I'll answer your question about the case in just a minute. There has been a recent positive development in the case. But just by way of background, many of your viewers and listeners will know this. But for those who don't. So Missouri versus Biden later turned Murphy v. Missouri.
is a case challenging government censorship on social media that I am a plaintiff in, along with the state of Missouri, Louisiana, and four other private plaintiffs. And one of those other private plaintiffs, Jay Bhattacharya, My dear friend and colleague has recently been appointed the director of the National Institute of Health.
And he was censored by the previous director of the National Institute of Health. We have an internal email that we got on FOIA discovery
between Francis Collins, former director, and Anthony Fauci, saying that we need a, quote, swift and devastating takedown of the premises of the Great Barrington Declaration, which Jay co-authored, along with Martin Kulldorff, one of our other- A fringe epidemiologist. Yeah, and he called them fringe epidemiologists.
And now this fringe epidemiologist is going to replace him as director of the NIH. I agree, that's just poetic justice at work there. Another interesting development in terms of government appointments
is that the legal mastermind in our case, former Solicitor General of Missouri, a man by the name of John Sauer, who is a tornado in the courtroom and an absolutely brilliant litigator, has just been tapped to be the United States Solicitor General. That is the highest litigator in the land.
you could say so uh so we have two people from our case that will be taking up positions of considerable influence in the next administration so that's very exciting the case itself continues of course John is not going to argue again. He's going to have to recuse himself if this case goes back to the Supreme Court. Usually it would be the Solicitor General arguing on behalf of the government.
But of course, he was involved in the case earlier and he's very sympathetic to our side. So I'm not sure how much of a defense the government's going to be able to mount at this point. They'll probably have to get a replacement lawyer. But the case is back at the district court. The Supreme Court earlier in January set a very high threshold for a legal requirement called standing.
Basically, the ability for us to prove that it was the government, not social media companies, that censored us. And so according to that strict criteria, we petitioned.
the court again for additional discovery that means we're gonna we're gonna learn a lot more information we're gonna have more depositions of defendants we're gonna have more documents that we recover um that are were previously you know private communications between government and social media companies so and the court granted that request for additional discovery to try to help us establish standing and so that is going to basically break things open even more and
Regardless of the final outcome in this case, the case is serving the purpose of shining a very bright spotlight on the nature of government censorship. And I think this next stage of the case where we're going to get additional discovery is going to continue to sort of blow this thing open and publicize what happened. There was a very important moment, too.
in the vice presidential debate with JD Vance, the very last question that they put to Vance, which was, what about January 6? Isn't Trump a threat to democracy? And while acknowledging that there were obviously problems on January 6th, Vance said that the real threat to democracy is the government-sponsored censorship that has been happening on an industrial scale for the last several years.
And that was a clear reference to the information that's been uncovered in our case. So the next administration is very aware of the censorship issue. They've said publicly they want to dismantle the government's
censorship machinery i like to tell people this is not a partisan issue they shouldn't see it as a partisan issue maybe you don't want donald trump to be president fine i don't want donald trump or joe biden or obama or any other future president
left right republican democrat to have access to this kind of control over speech so it's not a partisan issue it's a constitutional issue regardless of who's in power you do not want to give them the ability to censor people online and that's i think that's why this case continues
Showing 41–60 of 76 · page 3 of 4
← Previous
Next →