Best of the Program | 12/15/21

loves a challenge.

It's why she lifts heavy weights

and likes complicated recipes.

But for booking her trip to Paris, Olivia chose the easy way with Expedia.

She bundled her flight with a hotel to save more.

Of course, she still climbed all 674 steps to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

You were made to take the easy route.

We were made to easily package your trip.

Expedia, made to travel.

Flight-inclusive packages are at all protected.

I think the podcast

starts off the right way with a government official singing somewhere over the pandemic.

It is the most cringeworthy that I think I've experienced.

And

we've come a very long way on cringeworthy things that are coming from the government.

Also, what the mayor of San Francisco is doing, and is this a turning point?

We talk a little bit about what Elon Musk did to Elizabeth Warren and John Stossel's attorney to talk about what does Facebook mean that their fact check is protected opinion.

All this and more on today's podcast.

Don't forget to order your merch at glennbeckmerch.com.

You can use the promo code GLEN20 to save 20%.

Oh, and don't forget to rate and review this podcast as well as heading over to Studios America to do the same.

There, we play the song It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Venezuela on the program today.

You can get that and listen as many times as you like.

Share it and subscribe at Studoz America on this podcast platform.

You're listening to the best of the Blenbeck program.

So, Elon Musk, yesterday, he was named Times,

Time Magazine's 21 person of the year.

So Elizabeth Warren tweets: Let's change the rig tax code so the person of the year will actually pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else.

Musk followed up saying, stop projecting.

You remind me of when I was a kid and my friend's angry mom would just randomly yell at everyone for no reason.

In another, that is her profile.

It is.

It is.

She's angry.

She's always angry in that voice.

Yeah, I know.

I mean, this is why, of course, she didn't even come close to winning the primary.

I think she did better than Kamalo.

Oh, well,

that's not a standard, though.

Is that really the standard you're shooting for?

In another tweet, he said, oh, please don't call the manager on me, Senator Karen.

I love this.

And I love this guy because he just,

he says out loud what a lot of people think.

And he is a guy who I have real problems with at times because now he's saying, you know, no subsidies should be available.

Well, after he got his subsidy.

So is he kicking the door behind him to stop everybody else?

Or has he really had a change of heart?

Hopefully he's really had a change of heart.

But I don't know.

But here's what I want to, here's what I want to talk to you about.

I'm not sure

if the people that we have

quote unquote coming over to our side

have actually really changed

other than

they realize their side is really dangerous now.

So in other words, are they like Republicans that joined the Tea Party that realized,

I got to be out of this Republican Party because

they don't stand for anything.

And we realized that.

And while we torch the Republican Party, many of us will still vote for the Republican Party.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

So I'm not sure if these guys

have had a real awakening to our argument.

or they're now seeing the people they've been standing in the room with and they're like, I don't want to be with these people.

This is crazy.

And so they've revealed themselves as the true, more libertarian liberal that they always have been.

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

You see what I mean?

Yeah, I think that's, I mean, the Overton window is

back

in effect here.

We talked about this with Bob Costas the other day, who, you know, he had this call with Jim Garrity,

who had criticized him for some of his monologues about guns and the Washington Redskins team name and said he was, you know, as we did as well, that he was, Bob Costas seems like a crazy liberal.

And Costas

called up and said, hey, I'm not that guy.

I'm not far left.

And just the fact that he would want to disagree with being outed as someone who is far left indicates he probably isn't far left.

Because the AOC never comes up and says, no, I'm really not socialist.

That's not what these people do anymore.

That's an old era of

liberal.

And what's weird is they are now separating themselves.

They were the ones who would have said, Glenn Beck's crazy saying that everybody's a Marxist.

You know, we're not Marxist when, you know, Newsweek magazine ran the headline,

we're all Marx socialist now.

And they were the ones that would jump on the bandwagon defending the people who were on the Democratic side that were truly Marxist.

Now,

did they just not believe that?

Or Or have they had

an awakening to Marxism?

Were they always part of this kind of Marxist soup and they've just backed up and said, okay, this is not going to work here?

Or were they just truly a blind liberal that just thought the party is the party and we're not Marxists?

Yeah, maybe they thought it was just overblown.

Republicans were saying these things and they're not true.

And to be fair, there were a lot more on the the left side that weren't Marxist.

I mean, Joe Biden used to very much sound like a normal Democrat.

If you go back to the 90s, you can go back to the 90s.

We were talking about this with San Francisco a little earlier when it comes to crime.

There's a version of Joe Biden that could do very well in this country today.

The 1990s.

That's the version that people voted, thought they were voting for.

They thought they were voting for.

And that's why he got elected.

And you go back to 1994, he's got the crime bill.

He's trying to hold people accountable for criminal actions.

Now he's saying that was racist, and I apologize for it when that sort of action is needed most, as we're seeing in San Francisco now.

So I think it's come a long way.

You know, Elon Musk, I don't know exactly where he comes from on the subsidies sort of thing.

He's now saying he doesn't want them for

anybody, which I love.

I mean, that's what I believe as well.

However, obviously his company was built on them.

I mean, Tesla was built on.

That's why I wonder.

Is he kicking the door closed for everybody else?

I don't think so.

I don't think that's him.

You know, maybe he just,

he

didn't emphasize it a lot back then, or maybe he just liked the idea that he could get his company started.

I don't know.

But you left out, I think, the most important part of this exchange with Elizabeth Warren when he points out he will pay more taxes than any American in U.S.

history this year.

Now, this is, Elizabeth Warren is so dumb that she's actually criticizing a person for not paying taxes who's paying the most taxes of anyone in history.

Has there ever been a bigger miss of a tweet than elizabeth warrens think about it seriously i'm saying that he's paying more taxes he's paying more than anyone in history he's paying more than anyone in history and she said he paid nothing there is literally no way to miss more than she missed and uh

george washington never died because he is satan i died i guess

that's questionable you know you could still question maybe we can't quantify that we could quantify the elon musk situation.

And he, of course, followed it up with, don't spend it all at once.

Oh, wait, you did already.

That's so great.

That is true.

So great.

Now, so the question is,

people are waking up, but what are they waking up to?

Are they waking up and saying, conservatives are right?

Or are they just waking up to the things that we've always had in common?

where conservatives, the people like us, have said, guys, we didn't change.

You You changed.

You changed.

The Democratic Party is no longer fighting for what you say you believe in.

They're not fighting for the Bill of Rights.

They are fighting for socialism in communism and a fundamental transformation of America.

Well,

I hope that they are waking up, especially.

to the Democratic Party thing.

Because do you remember it was racist to say anyone was a Marxist.

It was crazy to say somebody in the Democratic Party is a communist.

Well, tell me what you think of this story.

Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, one of the worst people in the world, spoke at an awards ceremony over the weekend hosted by a Communist Party affiliate whose leaders use the event to recruit potential members into the Communist Party.

Now, he's one of the wealthiest members of the Senate, which let's put that aside because actually it's his wife.

I just love a man who never really even created wealth but is living off of his wife.

It's so beautiful.

Blumenthal appeared, even as Democratic leaders have downplayed allegations that many in the party support socialist or communist policies.

So they are still saying, no, we don't support that.

But then, how do you

explain Blumenthal

going and speaking at the Communist Party event?

Blumenthal was introduced at the event by Lisa Bergman, a Communist Party member who blamed corporations for the imperialism that exists in our world that is undermining the labor and environment movement.

She also had, there was another communist MC, Ben McManus, issued invitations at the ceremony to join the Communist Party.

And I quote, if you're not already part of the Communist Party, we invite you to participate and contribute and join.

There's more and more people talking about socialism in this country as it becomes more and more clear that capitalism is not going to work for our future.

So tell me what's happening there.

Democrats, explain this.

Can you imagine if somebody said, I am definitely not part of the Klan,

but then you're invited to speak at a Klan

awards ceremony and you speak.

And when you're speaking, everybody's like, and by the way, make sure you join the Klan on the way out.

How would you explain that?

Because I think that would be unexplainable.

I think anybody who did that, it would be pretty hard to say, oh, yeah, he's not Klan-friendly.

No way.

No way.

How is it that the Democrats don't care that they are now having Dick Blumenthal,

a guy who's not known

in the media circles as the radical?

He's kind of the law enforcement kind of guy.

I just, you know, I just want to make sure that everything is running, you know, and really buttoned up.

I'm certainly not a communist.

Really?

Then why are you speaking at the Communist Party awards ceremony?

We have to wake our friends and family up.

And this is why I've been saying for a while, our unum has always been the Bill of Rights.

When Biden says, freedom, and we're just talking about you having to get a vaccine.

What's the big deal?

The big deal is the government doesn't have the right to tell me what to put into my body.

That's the big deal.

You don't have a right, so stop trying to do it.

You don't have a right to force companies to make me do it.

You don't have the right to do it.

Today is the day that

the founders enshrined the Bill of Rights.

They were very important.

They still are.

And those were the things that brought us together.

Not our policies, not who we voted for, not things that we have to tax or not tax.

It was the Bill of Rights.

And when you have leaders of the Democratic Party speaking at the Communist Party annual awards,

you don't have people who believe in the Bill of Rights.

You have people who are working with or standing with people who are undermining the Bill of Rights.

And that's the one thing we should still all have in common.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for listening.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Yesterday, I told you a little bit about Facebook, something that people are not paying attention to.

They should.

is in a court battle with John Stossel.

I have his attorney on with us at the top of next hour, so just about 25 minutes away.

But

they have, John Stossel has sued because of a fact check from Facebook that he says defamed him because they said that his facts were false.

And John says, no, I've been in the fact checking business, you know, most of my life, and I know the difference between fact and false, and this isn't false.

Well, he fought this, and in court now, Facebook has issued something

in their defense.

They say opinions are not subject to defamation claims.

While false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation.

So they're saying fact-check articles.

This this is a quote, fact check articles are not the labels affixed through Facebook platform.

The labels themselves are

neither false nor defamatory.

To the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.

Now, the way I read that is

fact check

doesn't have to be based in facts.

They can, if they have an opinion that says, no, that's not right, then

they can claim that our facts are wrong, trumped by their opinion, which is the case we have been making the whole time.

Where is the line for your opinion and facts?

Because we know what the facts are.

You can then go in and say, we disagree.

But who are you to say we disagree on our opinion?

we're arguing facts as john points out they they can pretty much do what they want on their website however it's it's a terrible way of doing business especially for somebody who claims they want to be the source of the public square conversation uh i i don't they don't seem to act that way and you know they you know twitter is doing something today where they are penalizing users who claim vaccinated people can spread COVID-19.

Now,

every study, every study from the literal beginning has said that

if you are vaccinated, you have a chance, a lower chance, but a chance of spreading COVID-19.

There's never been a study that has said it's going to prevent every single case of spread.

It's never occurred.

So how are they?

And they're saying that if you say, hey, you know what?

I think

you can spread it if you are vaccinated, which is true by literally every scientific report, including the scientists who work at at Pfizer.

Okay?

That doesn't mean that they are, they're terrible and they're the worst thing in the world.

It doesn't mean anything like that, but it does mean that, of course,

some people are the facts.

You know, this is from the CDC website.

If you are fully vaccinated and become infected with a Delta variant, you can spread the virus to others.

Infections happen.

Only in a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with a delta variant, as compared to people who are not vaccinated.

But that does say, both of those things say you can get it and you can spread it.

It can happen.

So, and it seems to be even worse when it comes to Omicron.

If that thing catches on here, which it looks like it may.

So to punish the, like you are punishing people for saying things that are on the CDC website.

Hurry while they last on the website.

Pointer.org has just fact-checked my recent COVID special.

More specifically, the question, does the government co-own the vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccine?

They also questioned my question on whether the government may have ulterior motives in mandating the vaccine.

And here's their fact check.

Is it true the government, and it should be, co-owns the vaccine, but is it true the government owns the vaccine, as Beck said?

In short,

no.

Okay, in short, no.

How about we look at the long form then?

I mean, why add in short?

It's a yes yes or no question.

Well, this is a topic that requires a short explanation.

I guess I would personally say no, as the COVID origin story and the vaccine origin story are the biggest topics in the world right now.

It's not even close, but it kind of seems like this fact check agrees because they follow up in their little in-short no remark with this little tidbit.

And I quote, but as the New York Times reported November 9th, there is a long-brewing disagreement between Moderna and the National Institute of Health over who developed a crucial part of the COVID-19 vaccine known as the mRNA sequence.

And that could have implications for ownership of important patents related to the vaccine.

So in other words, no.

No, they don't co-own it.

No.

In fact, to prove it, there's a court battle right now going on between the government and Moderna, and they're battling out in court to see who owns it or not.

Well, wait a minute.

I showed you the document with the signature and said, what's this all about?

Did you know?

Did you know that they co-owned?

Did you know this was happening?

Don't you think?

Because if they're getting money or anyone in the NIH is getting money,

we should know about it because that might, you know, be an ulterior motive.

And by the way, we had conversations before this special even aired off the air,

talking about all of the points they bring up here and making sure that we included the nuance that existed.

And then they, instead of fact-checking the special, they didn't fact-check the special, they fact-checked TikTok.

They fact-checked what part of the special went viral on TikTok, which is pretty frustrating.

I don't know how we're supposed to control that.

Yeah.

Pointer also also points this out: quote: A lot of money is at stake, as well as a big say in the distribution of vaccines worldwide.

If the NIH scientists were named as inventors on the sequins patent, that would enable the government to collect royalties on the patent and to license it as it sees fit, including some have noted, to other vaccine manufacturers besides Moderna.

The result could have long-term consequences for global global vaccine access.

Well, now maybe it's just me, but a lot of money is

at stake.

Kind of sounds like maybe we should look for arterior motives.

It's interesting how they point out royalties to be paid to the government because if you go down to page 125 on the agreement that we showed you between Moderna and the government, you'll find an interesting appendix called Royalties Appendix.

Now, if there's no co-ownership, why is there a royalties appendix?

It says, if any vaccine is produced based off their collaborative research, then Moderna would owe the government an initial sum 60 days after the signing of this agreement, October 2019, and then every year annually.

If you scroll down to page 127, the government instructs how those royalties would be paid.

Now, why would Moderna be paying the federal government?

In fact, there's even an account number on page 127 that shows that the money should be directed to the Federal Reserve Bank.

I don't know.

That kind of sounds like money is changing hands or could change hands if they co-owned this.

If they developed it and they said, no, we developed this all by ourselves, ourselves, then no money changes hands.

No, we have a co-ownership and we gave you the mRNA

mechanics and you added this, so we're partners on it.

That's what it says.

How is Pointer doing this?

They found also no suspicion at all that Dr.

Barrick was included in the collaboration between Moderna and the NIH.

Not even a little suspect that the government and and Moderna were working on a coronavirus mRNA vaccine and that they were sending research back and forth with the man, Barrick, who was working with Dr.

Xi and Wuhan on coronavirus.

There's no interest in that.

This is the same Wuhan where the pandemic began.

It's not worthy of a question, I guess.

And by the way, I have questions.

We all should have questions.

The facts are this.

The government and Moderna have been collaborating on a coronavirus vaccine since 2015.

The contract specifically states co-ownership of vaccine candidates and on page 24, all data and material produced along the way.

Royalties have been negotiated.

Royalties are in the contract.

Dr.

Barrick, the man who had been working on coronavirus research with Dr.

Xi, was included.

And now there's a dispute between the government and Moderna on who owns what.

That's the fact, Poynter.

But don't worry, nothing to see here.

Pointer's got it.

They're smarter than you.

You know,

it's just the government trying to mandate a vaccine that they're currently fighting on how much of it they were involved with inventing.

And then the contract that states in black and white the royalties that should be paid to the federal bank if anything is produced based off their collaboration.

Nothing to see here.

There's no ulterior motive.

There's no co-ownership at all.

So what the hell does this even mean?

That's why I'm asking.

There is no precedent for this.

And if the government or government employees are going to benefit even a little off of a federal policy that contributes to that benefit, we should be asking these questions.

That's what the media used to do.

That's what Pointer

says their whole mission is.

I fact-check Pointer.

They're liars.

They are liars specifically here.

They're liars.

Fact-check that opinion, Pointer.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

If you are ready for some really great news, keep listening.

Built Bar is back and it is unbelievable.

If you've been listening to my show this year, I love Built Bars.

It's an all-American story.

This is a client I asked to be on the show because I didn't listen to my wife again.

And she'd been telling me about it, but it has protein bar on it.

And those always taste like a doormat.

This is unbelievable.

The mint brownie flavor?

Oh, yes, baby.

It is life-changing.

The new bars taste better than ever.

In addition to the 12 original flavors, Built Bar just added cookies and cream, carrot cake, caramel brownie, lemon, almond cheesecake, apple, almond crisp.

I mean, it's just, it's great.

Built Bar, delicious, nutritious, high-protein, low-calorie, high-fiber, low carbs, 100% real chocolate, and 100% really good.

Plus, they've reset the code for this new launch.

Right now, go to builtbar.com, use the promo code Beck, get $10 off your first order.

Promo code Beck, BuiltBar.com.

Nationally recognized civil rights lawyer

named as one of the best lawyers under 40 in 2007.

She is the founder and chief executive officer for the Center for American Liberty.

We welcome Harmeet Dillon to the program.

Hi, Harmeet.

Yes.

Hi.

Thanks for having me.

So

I can't wrap my arms around this crazy Facebook defense that their fact checks are protected opinions.

And so we can't push back on them while they say we're liars.

How's that work?

Well, I don't think it works.

You know, we've seen this phenomenon now for several years.

I've seen it with various clients of my firm where they're respected journalists or writers and they put up material on Twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram, on other platforms.

YouTube is another.

And these companies have been sued many times.

I've sued various of these companies many times on different theories.

And because of a law called Communications and Decency Act, Section 230, these companies have basically been allowed a government protection

from the type of defamation that you or I would be liable for if we said said false things about people in other forums.

And so in this case, as many of your viewers may know, when you're reading an article and maybe an article you like and you go to share it or even without going to share it,

a label pops up that warns you that

this article that you're reading and you're about to share is false, partly false,

fake news basically, and then sometimes even getting into some details as to what's false about it.

And that's what happened here with John Stossel, who's a respected journalist with decades of experience.

And he's creating independent content now.

And on his Facebook page, he posted a couple of videos about two different climate change topics.

And one was about the forest fires that have consumed California over recent years and in 2020 and what caused them.

And he was interviewing experts on forest fires.

And then in the other one, he's talking about a variety of claims by

climate activists about

everything being caused by climate change, hurricanes, fires, you name it.

And so, how these companies try to get around them being called to famers, Facebook and these other big companies, is they hire, and I imagine my air quotes here.

They hire independent fact-checkers who are really activists themselves, of course.

They let loose the hounds of independent fact checkers on helpless users of these platforms who are not allowed to fight back, and they rip them to shreds as if it's some kind of a blood sport.

And there's no appeal process.

And so, you know, this climate change group that was tasked with reviewing this one is some French outfit, very biased.

A review of their reviews of people's posts shows that in the case of authors who are perceived as conservative, they routinely rate them as false or mostly false.

Lacking context is another nice one that they like to use.

But in this case, you know, they really got it wrong here.

Factually wrong.

You know, they attributed to John a statement that he didn't make, namely that he said that climate played no role in forest fires.

And in fact, he actually said that climate very well may play a role in fires, but it certainly doesn't explain California's fires.

And there are other explanations that have to do with

government behavior and choices.

And then in the other one, similarly,

they basically smear him with

misleading, lacking context, partially false, contains factual inaccuracies.

So that's the label on the more general video.

Now, if you're a journalist who's devoted his whole career to getting it right and elucidating the truth to the public, labeling somebody's post as partly false, contains factual inaccuracies, is devastating.

It would be like telling the world, fixing a label to lawsuits that I filed, that

they've been sanctioned when they haven't.

Well,

honestly, it is like instead of taking the all the news fit to print and changing the subtitle to the New York Times to contains factual inaccuracies.

Right.

Or lacking context.

A lot lacking context.

Yeah, you would, the New York Times would never become the New York Times if that had to be printed on the front page of every newspaper.

And it's true about the New York Times.

It's true about the New York Times.

And, you know, so

what so now these guys are playing a shell game.

So we sued them.

But we didn't just sue them.

We wrote them letters first, the French, you know,

climate change outfits.

And we, and Facebook now meta,

and they changed their name in the middle of this case.

And,

you know, they wrote back saying, oh, no, no, this is, this is, you know, infotainment, basically.

This is our opinion.

It isn't fact-checking at all, although it says fact-checkers and fact-checking on it.

And we didn't buy it.

I mean, this was devastating to John.

It drove his viewership down hugely.

And for social media writers,

that's revenue.

That's credibility.

That's your professional reputation.

That's

what you're labeled maliciously with in Wikipedia when you die.

Purveyor of false videos.

Yeah.

So that's a stench that doesn't wash off, and there's no place to wash it off.

He sued as a last resort over this issue.

And Facebook responded,

you know, this is just this is this isn't this is just our opinion.

This isn't meant to be fact.

You aren't meant to take it literally when we say fact checkers.

So it's kind of an Orwellian, almost ridiculous situation.

But

black and white.

Where does this go from here?

Well, there'll be an argument in front of the judge.

Interestingly, our case has bounced around so far amongst two judges.

The second judge just got appointed to the, just got nominated and confirmed to the Ninth Circuit last week.

So we're probably going to be awaiting hearing in front of a third judge to see what happens with this case.

And look,

Facebook has, oh, sorry, Meta has overwhelming resources.

And they just brush these claims aside.

And I've dealt with their quote-unquote fact checkers before.

And Glenn,

your listeners may not know what this industry of fact checkers is.

They're, again, air quotes, nonprofits.

They usually employ washed up or, you know, sort of journalists who don't want to work that hard anymore or activists or both.

Some from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, I've dealt with some very esteemed former journalists who now work for these outfits.

And all day long, their job is, you know, slap false labels on as many of your enemies and opponents and people who disagree with you as possible, laugh quietly, and go out for a cocktail.

That's the deal.

And it's not right.

And if you or I did this and called a journalist's work false, partly false,

you know, lacking context, that would be harmful, and you or I could get sued.

So the same should be true of Facebook.

And Communications Decency Act, Section 230, is not, as these big tech companies repeatedly claim, a license to lie, smear, defame,

and devastate users.

But that's exactly

what it does over and over and over again.

We have had fact checks from these same people.

We've had fact checks where they claimed that something we said was false because it comes from

a study that on page 435 made another claim that we weren't making that was proven false.

Right.

But because

the part that wasn't false was also in that same study with something that was,

we were fact checked as wrong.

And it's like, wait.

Right.

And when you look at the label, I'm just reading from it, from our complaint,

the label, big, big box, missing context.

And then it says, from independent fact checkers.

And then there's another little label, fact check,

science, climate change, et cetera.

And then it says about this notice.

Independent fact checkers say this information is missing context and could mislead people.

And then it says, learn more about how Facebook works with independent fact checkers to stop the spread of false information.

So it goes on to say this is false.

So, I mean, I don't know how much more clear you can be.

So claiming it's now

it's news to me.

And by the way, they're asking every user of Facebook to somehow guess that their fact check is simply

their opinion commentary.

Right.

And on top of it, they not only label you with that, but they also then, the algorithm shoves you down.

And on top of that, now I've noticed some of them are not even letting you share the story.

It won't,

you can't,

it's there.

It'll say it's false.

But if you try to share the story because you disagree with their opinion, you can't even share the story.

I mean,

it's a gulag system

at Facebook.

What can the average person do?

Well,

you know, the average person can

follow this lawsuit, talk about it, mock Facebook.

I don't know.

And, you know, we have to eventually, hopefully, find some platforms that don't lie, defame, steal our information, and play games.

But ultimately, Glenn, the only remedy for this,

for the citizens, for the users of social media around the world, is

our members of Congress and our president, when they are right-thinking people, need to change Communications and Decency Act, Section 230.

to make it clear that it is no longer appropriate for these companies to use its protections as a complete carte blanche for doing whatever they want.

There have to be some norms and some rules.

There should be a user's bill of rights.

There needs to be an appeals process for this.

And these companies have to face some form of liability because so far, court after court after court has let them out scot-free.

And frankly, even conservative think tanks, and I'm using those air quotes again, and conservative nonprofits and conservative lawmakers have all bought the big tech lobbyist propaganda that these types of quote-unquote protections for these trillion-dollar corporations are necessary to ensure free speech.

No, they are.

They're no more necessary to ensure free speech than a taking away defamation liability is necessary for you or I or the New York Times to stop defaming people.

It is, in fact, that liability that reins people in from going too far.

So we all know the difference between a fact check and an opinion, and nobody's suing over an opinion here.

They're suing over a false accusation of lying in an article.

Exactly right.

Thank you so much, Harmee Dillon.

We'll be watching this and our best to John Stossel and everybody on your team.

Thank you.

Your sausage mumuffin with egg didn't change.

Your receipt did.

The sausage mcmuffin with egg extra value meal includes a hash brown and a small coffee for just $5.

Only at McDonald's for a limited time.

Prices and participation may vary.