And the Hey, it's Andrew Clavin, with this week's interview with Michael Schoenberger.

I'm really delighted to have Michael on.

He is a terrific investigative reporter and I've

said this a million times. It's still one of the many things that we need more of is

good independent investigative reporting. He has a sub-stack called Public,

which is absolutely terrific.

He's the CBR chair of censorship, politics,

and free speech at the University of Austin,

best-selling author.

He's a book called Apocalypse Never, and one called Samfran Sico. Best the news with social media, you were one of the guys that Elon Musk chose to unleash

the Twitter files and recently this has come before the Supreme Court, a bunch of states suing the Biden administration

for trying to shut down voices. I thought some of the things the court said

sounds pretty skeptical of stopping the government from doing this.

Where did you, how did you feel about the case and where do you feel it's going?

Well, I share your concern.

I think that I was there on Monday.

I got, got in line bright and early and got into here in person the

interaction between the attorneys and the Supreme Court justices. I think that

our side didn't argue it as well as we could have. I think it's a complex issue.

I was disappointed by the reaction I think from the justices on two levels. First, they didn't seem to understand the difference legally between

newspapers, traditional media, and social media platforms. You and your listeners may know that in 1996 there was a law passed that as part of the Communications Decency Act called Section 230, which explicitly distinguishes between publishers like the Daily Wire, like public on

sub-stack, and social media platforms like sub-stack, like X and Facebook.

...