TikTok v. Garland

The Supreme Court says that you don’t have a constitutional right to post short form videos of cute cats. Is it time for a revolution? You can subscribe to 5-4 Premium on Patreon, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. 5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. This episode was produced by Dustin DeSoto. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations. Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On BlueSky, find Peter @notalawyer.bsky.social, Michael @fleerultra.bsky.social, and Rhiannon @aywarhiannon.bsky.social. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy https://acast.com/privacy for more information. Our Sponsors: * Check out Mint Mobile and use my code mintmobile.com/fivefour for a great deal: https://www.mintmobile.com * Check out Quince and use my code FIVEFOUR for a great deal: https://www.quince.com Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  We will hear an argument this morning in case 24656 TikTok versus Garland and the consolidated case.

• 0:12Speaker 01

  Hey, everyone. This is Leon from Prologue Projects. On this episode of Five to Four, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are talking about TikTok v. Garland. This is a case from just a few weeks ago centered on a law passed by Congress last year that said TikTok must separate from its Chinese parent company or else get banned in the United States. TikTok, along with some of its users, challenged the law, claiming that banning the app would violate their freedom of speech. But the Supreme Court said the ban does not constitute a violation of the First Amendment and that the law is justified because TikTok is a threat to national security.

• 0:49Michael Liroff?

  The High Court has just declined to stop a ban of TikTok. How do you feel about the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to uphold the TikTok ban? I think it's pretty unfortunate.

• 1:01Speaker 03

  I feel like a part of my soul is leaving.

• 1:04Speaker 04

  I think it's a bit of a sad day for the country and the world.

• 1:08Speaker 01

  This is Five to Four, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

• 1:19Speaker 01

  Welcome to Five to Four, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have left our civil rights snowed in like Rhiannon when it snows half an inch in Texas.

• 1:28Speaker 05

  That's right.

• 1:30Speaker 01

  Peter, I'm here with Rhiannon.

• 1:32Speaker 05

  Hey, work was closed. Everything's canceled, baby.

• 1:36Speaker 01

  And Michael.

• 1:37Michael Liroff?

  Hey, everybody.

• 1:39Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm sorry to hear about the tragedy that has befallen Texas, Rhiannon. A very small amount of snow.

• 1:46Speaker 05

  Me and Petra are hanging out. She has a new heated bed that she loved today.

• 1:52Michael Liroff?

  Nice.

• 1:53Speaker 05

  And yeah, that's because it was 31 degrees outside.

• 1:58Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah. Cats love to just be blasted with what appears to be an unbelievable amount of heat.

• 2:04Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 2:05Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:05Peter Shamshiri?

  Cosmo chills in front of a heat vent. And when she exits that and you touch her, she's fucking just baking like a chicken in there. It's unreal.

• 2:17Speaker 05

  There's a hot potato.

• 2:19Michael Liroff?

  I realized recently that my dog is like that. Cupcake is like that. Because she's always sitting in sunbeams and lying in sunbeams. But then also, like, when I get out of bed to like go to the bathroom or something, she immediately jumps up and lies right where I was. And I'm realizing it's because that's like warmed up.

• 2:37Speaker 05

  The warm spot.

• 2:38Peter Shamshiri?

  Oh, yeah. Cosmo does that, too. And maybe that's why.

• 2:41Speaker 05

  Oh, yeah. Petra does that, too. It's a warm spot.

• 2:43Peter Shamshiri?

  I always just thought that she figured out that we hate it, that we're really annoyed by it. And she was like, I'm gonna start doing that now.

• 2:50Michael Liroff?

  So we, uh, we got out the heating pad and put her on it. And she loved it.

• 2:55Peter Shamshiri?

  Nice.

• 2:55Michael Liroff?

  She's like, yes, heating pad is, it's worked out.

• 2:58Speaker 05

  That's good stuff. She just like me for real.

• 3:07Peter Shamshiri?

  This week's case, TikTok Inc. v. Garland. This is a case from just a week and change ago about the law banning TikTok. In 2024, Congress passed legislation saying that the popular short video app TikTok must divest itself of its Chinese parent company by January 19th, 2025, or else be essentially banned in the United States. TikTok and some of its users challenged this law as a violation of their free speech rights. But the Supreme Court, in what appears to be a unanimous decision, we'll talk about that in a bit,

• 3:49Peter Shamshiri?

  said, no, we need this law to protect ourselves against China.

• 3:56Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 3:56Michael Liroff?

  China's coming for your data.

• 4:00Speaker 05

  Yeah, China's coming for your, your weird, weird TikTok content.

• 4:07Speaker 05

  So TikTok, everybody knows what TikTok is. Video sharing app. It has 170 million users in the United States, over 1 billion users worldwide. This is a massively used app with a ton of reach. And US users made 5.5 billion videos on TikTok in 2023. Those 5.5 billion videos were then viewed more than 13 trillion times all over the world. And TikTok is unique. As you know, if you're on TikTok or have heard a single thing about TikTok, what makes TikTok unique is that special, sweet, sweet algo, that algorithm.

• 4:51Speaker 05

  The algorithm on TikTok is incredibly responsive to the users' actions on that app. When you like a video, when you watch a video all the way through, when you watch a video longer than you watch other videos, when you comment on a video, when you share a video, the algo on TikTok is tracking all of that and then fine tuning, tailoring the next videos that you get on the app according to that activity. So let's talk about TikTok like as a corporation and who runs it and how it works. TikTok is operated in the US by an American company, a US-based company, but it has a parent company. The parent company is ByteDance, and that is a private company in China.

• 5:34Speaker 05

  And ByteDance is the company that owns that TikTok algorithm. And that algorithm is developed and maintained in China. Now, as a Chinese company, ByteDance operates, of course, according to Chinese laws. And Chinese laws require that ByteDance assist or cooperate with the Chinese government's, quote, "intelligence work." And ByteDance also has to ensure that the Chinese government has the power to access and control private data that ByteDance holds, meaning the Chinese government does have access to private user data on TikTok.

• 6:12Speaker 05

  Now, towards the end of his first term, back in 2020, late 2020, President Trump issued two executive orders, basically limiting TikTok on the basis that it's a threat to national security, based on what I just described, that the Chinese government has access to private user data on TikTok. And one of those executive orders prohibited certain transactions by ByteDance. Another one required that ByteDance divest all its interests and all its rights in any property that allowed ByteDance to operate TikTok in the US. This is essentially requiring that ByteDance not run TikTok anymore in the United States. ByteDance immediately sued to challenge both of those executive orders, and those

• 6:55Speaker 05

  cases basically didn't go anywhere. I don't need to go into the details here. And ByteDance and the Biden administration, once Biden took office, they entered into negotiations eventually to see if these national security concerns could be worked out. But eventually, those negotiations stalled and never really go anywhere either. So last year, in the meantime, Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which basically makes it illegal for-

• 7:28Peter Shamshiri?

  I love a law name. You know what I mean?

• 7:30Speaker 05

  This isn't even a good acronym.

• 7:32Peter Shamshiri?

  No.

• 7:33Speaker 05

  PAFCA. It's bad. And this law basically made it illegal for any entity to distribute or support an app that's controlled by a foreign adversary. But the law also explicitly identifies ByteDance and TikTok and says this is an app that is controlled by a foreign adversary. And the law also goes on and generally defines other apps that could fall into this category. But when Congress passed the law, they say this law is going to take effect on January 19th, 2025, and-

• 8:07Speaker 05

  For any app that is said to be controlled by a foreign adversary, the only way for that app to not be prohibited by this law would be by going through what is called a qualified divestiture process. The President of the United States, whoever is the President, has to basically sign off saying this app, this company, has divested from the foreign adversary control. And the President signs off and says this app is no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary. That's the only way for an app to become legal under this law, let's say.

• 8:46Peter Shamshiri?

  This app is no longer Chinese by order of the President.

• 8:49Speaker 05

  Right, right. Now, under the law, the President can grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days beyond January 19th, 2025, to push off the law coming into effect. But that's it. Now, as soon as this law was passed, ByteDance and TikTok, the US-based company, and some TikTok users, people, individuals who use TikTok, content creators, sued, challenging the constitutionality of the law. They say, hold up, wait a minute. This violates the First Amendment. Don't I have freedom of speech? Don't I have freedom of expression? And the government is taking that away from me right now. So lots of back and forth, lots of punches thrown on each side,

• 9:32Speaker 05

  many millions of people freaking out on TikTok about this. And that's how we get to the idiots at the Supreme Court.

• 9:39Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah. So let's talk about the law. This law bans, or at least potentially bans, TikTok. So like Ree mentioned, both TikTok, the corporation, and some of its creators sued, claiming that this violated their free speech rights. TikTok speaks, in the legal First Amendment sense, through its algorithm. It chooses what content to promote or not promote. And its users, of course, speak through their content. So both have potential claims here. The opinion here is per curiam, which we've talked about before. It means that the author of the opinion is not identified. It ostensibly means that this is like the voice of the court writ large, not any given justice.

• 10:24Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 10:24Michael Liroff?

  Right.

• 10:25Peter Shamshiri?

  The court is speaking with a unified voice, whatever. There are no noted dissents. There were two concurrences, one by Sotomayor, one by Gorsuch. With a per curiam opinion, just because there are no noted dissents doesn't mean that there are no dissents, but it does mean that there are probably no dissents. It would be a little bit weird for there to be an unnoted dissent here in a case like this. If we're going to speculate, and we are, it reads like John Roberts wrote the opinion to me in the sense that the opinion makes a set of arguments without ever actually trying to tie them together into a coherent string of reasoned analysis, if that makes sense. That's the classic Roberts move in my mind.

• 11:09Michael Liroff?

  I got a sharp pain behind my right eye reading this. That is like-

• 11:14Speaker 05

  Telltale sign.

• 11:15Michael Liroff?

  I only get from Roberts opinions. Nobody else's.

• 11:19Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah. Now, the first big question that the court confronts is what type of restriction this law imposes? Is it what's called a content-based restriction? Or is it a content-neutral restriction? Content-based restriction is one that restricts speech based on the content of the speech, like a law saying that you can't threaten someone, for example. A content-neutral restriction is one that restricts your speech, but not based on the content. So the classic example, what are called time, place, and manner restrictions? Laws that restrict where, when, and how you speak, but not what you speak?

• 11:58Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 11:59Peter Shamshiri?

  Examples being like a law saying you can't block a street while you're protesting, something like that.

• 12:04Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 12:05Peter Shamshiri?

  A law that requires a permit to protest in a certain area. Now, the reason that this distinction between content-based restrictions and content-neutral restrictions matters is because content-based restrictions are presumptive-

• 12:19Peter Shamshiri?

  Unconstitutional and they're generally just subject to more scrutiny by the court.

• 12:25Michael Liroff?

  Right.

• 12:25Speaker 05

  Right. If you're being restricted by the government on what you say, based on what you're saying, like based on the opinion that you're expressing, then that's going to come under more scrutiny legally.

• 12:37Peter Shamshiri?

  Right.

• 12:37Michael Liroff?

  The gist is that we generally don't censor disfavored viewpoints.

• 12:42Speaker 05

  Right.

• 12:43Michael Liroff?

  Right?

• 12:43Peter Shamshiri?

  Right.

• 12:44Michael Liroff?

  Or at least that's what we, our law, you know.

• 12:48Speaker 05

  Is supposed to stand for.

• 12:49Michael Liroff?

  Yeah. Aspires to the ideal, the ideal.

• 12:53Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 12:53Peter Shamshiri?

  Right. That's that beacon on a hill or whatever.

• 12:55Speaker 05

  That's the platonic ideal. We're seeing the shadow in the cave here, you know?

• 13:02Peter Shamshiri?

  So the question is, is the TikTok ban a content-based restriction or not? Now, part of the justification for the law is that the Chinese government can collect data on TikTok users. That's not really about content, but the other part of the justification was that the Chinese government could potentially manipulate the algorithm, thereby manipulating the American public. That seems like a content regulation, right? You are concerned that the Chinese government is going to dictate what Americans see on TikTok. That means that you're concerned about the content of the app. So content regulation.

• 13:46Peter Shamshiri?

  But what the court essentially says is that because there's one content neutral justification for the law, the data collection aspect, they're going to treat the law functionally as if it were content neutral, which I truly do not understand. I had to read this section a couple of times.

• 14:04Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 14:04Peter Shamshiri?

  Because it means that the government can restrict speech very directly based on the content of the speech as long as they have another justification for it.

• 14:14Michael Liroff?

  Right.

• 14:14Peter Shamshiri?

  So according to this court, it's okay to pass a law with an unconstitutional justification for restricting free speech. As long as you like home and auto bundle it with constitutional justification for restricting speech. Right. And this reminds me of a case we talk about all the time, I feel like, Nieves v. Bartlett.

• 14:34Speaker 05

  Yes, I thought about this too during prep, yes.

• 14:37Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah, that was a case about a cop basically punishing someone for their speech, but they had a constitutional reason for doing so, right? So like, a cop sees a bumper sticker that they don't like. It says, you know, Bernie 2020, or whatever, and the cop's like, I'm gonna follow this communist until they violate a traffic law.

• 15:01Speaker 05

  Right.

• 15:01Peter Shamshiri?

  What the court held there was like, well, as long as they find a traffic law violation, it's fine. It doesn't matter what the motivation was. And this reminds me of that. It's like, you can do a secretly unconstitutional thing as long as you lie to us about what the justification was. Like, that's, that's what the holding is in these cases. There's another thing here that the court does not address at all, which is that several people involved in the passage of this law expressed an entirely different justification for banning TikTok. The use of TikTok to mobilize against the genocide in Gaza. Yes. Mitt Romney mentioned, when discussing the ban, that TikTok host content disproportionately discussing the plight of Palestinians. Marco Rubio said something similar.

• 15:45Peter Shamshiri?

  So there's a question of whether the actual motivation, at least for some of the people who voted for this law, is in fact suppression of a very specific viewpoint.

• 15:56Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 15:57Peter Shamshiri?

  The court does not discuss this potential ulterior motive at all, which sort of, again, dovetails with a very common recent development of this court, which is like, we're not gonna talk about the secret motives of whoever passed this law. Like, Trump v. Hawaii, oh, yeah, Trump said that he wanted to ban as many Muslims as possible, and then he passed this law with the specific intent of doing so, but...

• 16:28Peter Shamshiri?

  Who are we to figure out his motives? Like, that's not our job.

• 16:32Michael Liroff?

  Right.

• 16:33Speaker 05

  This opinion like waves away the First Amendment concern in like two sentences by saying like, hmm, this law doesn't regulate speech, doesn't regulate users on TikTok. It regulates ByteDance. And you're just like, wait, what?

• 16:50Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 16:50Speaker 05

  Like.

• 16:50Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah, it doesn't, it doesn't directly regulate.

• 16:53Speaker 05

  Right.

• 16:53Peter Shamshiri?

  Creators, which is like, I guess that's one way of putting it. The regulation is not directly on the users of TikTok, but the impact is direct. Like, it's very, it's, I don't know about this reasoning.

• 17:08Michael Liroff?

  I think there's an analogy to, and I don't, I don't know how, quite how it works, but to the way money is treated. Money is treated as like the vehicle for speech or like the fuel for speech. And I think the analogy here is to like an audience, like having an audience is part of speech. And if you have an audience and it's taken away from you, that restricts your speech. It restricts the impact of your speech. It restricts your ability to talk to people you were talking to, like in a very literal sense, like.

• 17:45Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 17:46Michael Liroff?

  It's not a very thoughtful opinion, to say the least.

• 17:50Speaker 05

  And I think we'll get to this, but if doing all of that is fine under the First Amendment, well, the court should analyze it and reach that conclusion.

• 17:59Michael Liroff?

  Right.

• 18:00Speaker 05

  You know?

• 18:01Peter Shamshiri?

  So I think the big theme throughout the opinion is that the court is going to be very deferential to Congress on matters of national security. If you cry national security, they're going to be very hesitant to say that the law is unconstitutional. One of the arguments brought up by TikTok and the creators here is that Congress says that the concern is that China might collect data and manipulate the algorithm. But there's no evidence that they've ever actually done that in the past. So the argument is like, you're trying to restrict our free speech due to a concern about something that's actually almost entirely speculative.

• 18:43Peter Shamshiri?

  And the court's response to that is that China has, for example, tried to acquire data in other contexts. So it's a reasonable inference that they would do it here, which like, I think I agree with in like, the broadest sense that it's not crazy.

• 19:00Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 19:01Peter Shamshiri?

  But it's weird that the speculative nature of this concern doesn't seem to weigh on the constitutionality at all in the court's mind. Like, the way that these analyses work is that you weigh the burden on speech rights against the interest of the government. And if the interest of the government is largely based on speculation, that feels like it should be a big factor. But the court doesn't seem to believe so.

• 19:26Speaker 05

  Absolutely. Yeah, something they don't talk about at all also is like, that users agree to certain terms of service by being on TikTok and using TikTok. And not that that should mean that like, okay, yeah, we're just giving all our data to a foreign government or our government. But we could absolutely see a different case in which the Supreme Court uses user consent or consent to very long and broad terms of service, where you're giving up and waiving tons of things to use an app or a website or a service, you know, any kind of service. And the court would say like, oh, well, you know, they agreed to the terms of service. So it's fine, right?

• 20:11Speaker 05

  Like, they know the risks.

• 20:12Peter Shamshiri?

  Right.

• 20:13Speaker 05

  And here, that's just, it's a ton of speculation about a potential, you know, adversarial negative use of private data of, from US citizens by the Chinese government. That's a national security concern. The court is super concerned as well and just like, and that's it.

• 20:29Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah, there's an interesting analogy there to like, what's called a click rap agreements, right?

• 20:34Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 20:35Peter Shamshiri?

  All of the terms and conditions that you agree to in a single click that are like 100 pages long, right? And then You know, if you try to take Apple to federal court, they're gonna say, uh-uh, page 74 was actually an arbitration agreement.

• 20:52Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 20:53Peter Shamshiri?

  And the court's gonna say, you're shit out of luck.

• 20:55Speaker 05

  Mm-hmm.

• 20:55Peter Shamshiri?

  This is the power and beauty of contract. And, you know, it's not a perfect analogy because we're talking about this like broad national security concern.

• 21:03Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 21:04Peter Shamshiri?

  But it's interesting that it just gets no play. The idea that the users whose data is being collected and who are receiving the content on the platform have any like autonomy here doesn't really come into play for the court.

• 21:21Speaker 05

  Not at all.

• 21:22Peter Shamshiri?

  This is all about Mitt Romney trying to protect you or whatever.

• 21:25Speaker 05

  Yeah, yeah.

• 21:25Michael Liroff?

  Right. And, you know, this law doesn't do anything to stop China from getting your data other ways, like buying it from any of the dozens of other companies that are collecting

• 21:37Speaker 05

  Exactly.

• 21:38Michael Liroff?

  your data because over a decade of not taking data privacy seriously.

• 21:44Speaker 05

  Exactly.

• 21:44Michael Liroff?

  Means that all our data is out there and owned by a ton of corporations that don't give a shit about America's interests.

• 21:52Peter Shamshiri?

  Not just corporations, fucking like criminal enterprises across Eastern Europe have your social security number.

• 21:58Speaker 05

  Right, right.

• 22:00Peter Shamshiri?

  You know, and maybe this is a bit of a tangent, but like, I think this is why so many users of the app are like, who gives a shit? Because we are post-data privacy.

• 22:10Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 22:10Peter Shamshiri?

  Like, whatever data privacy regime you might aspire to, we don't have it. And in fact, in many respects, it's too late. All of our data is all over the fucking place. The Equifax leak was like, that was the end of it, right? Now.

• 22:26Michael Liroff?

  Right, the ship sailed, it's done.

• 22:28Peter Shamshiri?

  Every other month, you get a piece of mail that's like, hey, we're your pet insurance company. We were hacked by a Mexican cartel. This is our mandatory disclosure. So like.

• 22:40Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 22:41Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah. So people don't care about this stuff anymore. And the idea that Congress does, I find it a little bit offensive. Actually, go fuck yourselves.

• 22:49Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 22:49Michael Liroff?

  Right.

• 22:50Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 22:50Michael Liroff?

  This law doesn't even do anything about data privacy, right? It's not a data privacy law. It's just a China cell TikTok law. Like, who are we fucking kidding? Like, it's not even a data privacy law. Go fuck yourselves. Like, these, seriously, all these people, go fuck yourselves.

• 23:06Peter Shamshiri?

  Right. And this sort of dovetails nicely with another thing that's notably absent from this opinion, the discussion of user speech rights. TikTok has 170 million American users again. 170 million, that is half of the country. The sheer volume of people whose speech is being cut off by this law

• 23:30Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 23:31Peter Shamshiri?

  is effectively unprecedented in American history. And the court barely touches on it, barely touches on it. There's no discussion of like the scale here. I would think the fact that literally half the population is on this app would factor into the equation somewhere. But no, no, they don't talk about it at all. They don't talk about the commerce being done through the app. They don't talk about the political activism being done through the app. They don't talk about people sharing their thoughts about fucking books on like it's.

• 24:02Speaker 05

  Religion and religious services being done on the app. And again, if this is okay under the First Amendment, go through the analysis. Like, tell us why. Don't just say like, eh, no First Amendment concern. Actually, we just care about the national security concern. Actually, do the First Amendment analysis and tell us what the First Amendment requires of this. If you are going to take away this channel of expression for 170 million people, it's wild.

• 24:29Michael Liroff?

  Yeah, I mean, elected officials talk to their constituents on the app. Like, that's core political speech. It's the core of the First Amendment. And it's not enough to just be like, they can go to reels or something. They can go to Instagram, like, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, like, I don't think anybody would say. Yeah, the government shuttered the New York Times, but hey, the Washington Post exists like so we're fine. Like, that's not good. And the other thing is like for the people on the app. I don't think the First Amendment entitles anyone to an audience. But if you build an audience, if you build an audience of hundreds or thousands

• 25:13Michael Liroff?

  or millions of people, and then the government takes it away, that is an imposition on your speech.

• 25:20Peter Shamshiri?

  Right.

• 25:21Michael Liroff?

  It is an imposition on your speech. It makes it less meaningful. It gives it less power. And look, it's not just a few people. Again, it's 170 million people. It's wild. It's half the country.

• 25:34Peter Shamshiri?

  Right. And TikTok is different from Instagram. The same way that the New York Times is different from the Washington Post, right? They may seem similar in many ways. They may be similar in many ways. But just like there are different editorial viewpoints between newspapers, there are going to be little differences here and there between TikTok and Instagram in terms of what gets pushed into your feed, for example.

• 26:00Michael Liroff?

  Right.

• 26:01Peter Shamshiri?

  And that has speech implications.

• 26:02Michael Liroff?

  Absolutely. You know, it's hard to get hard numbers on this. Estimates vary. But that is probably more popular than every pro sports league other than the NFL. And it's just barely behind the NFL, like just barely behind the NFL.

• 26:19Peter Shamshiri?

  Right. Those numbers really like it's genuinely a sort of like the human mind can't comprehend it sort of number. 170 million people. And the only time it's mentioned is when, at the very end, when the court is like, 170 million people use this and this is actually such a bummer.

• 26:39Michael Liroff?

  Yeah. Yeah. It reminds me, it's like the final line in, I don't know, very much, it just reminds me of that scene in The Big Lebowski. When, when he's telling the dude that his wife got kidnapped, he's like,

• 26:55Michael Liroff?

  it's a bummer.

• 26:59Peter Shamshiri?

  So yeah, here's the line. There is no doubt that for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community. But Congress has determined that the vestigere is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok's data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary. I like how they treat it like it's happening, like they are describing what happened to you as opposed to making a decision.

• 27:26Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 27:27Peter Shamshiri?

  They're like, yeah, but Congress has determined. It's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. No, you, you're part of this too, motherfuckers. You think like this was, this is supposed to be you analyzing it, dude. You can't, you can't just tell me that Congress did this to me.

• 27:39Michael Liroff?

  Right. Yeah, it's fucking wild. Oh, God. Well, there are two concurrences. Sotomayor's got one that's like, just a couple paragraphs, very technical. You know, the, the perky opinion says like, we're going to assume for the sake of argument that this is like implicating the First Amendment. And she's like, why are we assuming that clearly this implicates the First Amendment? Like, we shouldn't be afraid to hold that here. She's right, but whatever. She's also wrong on the merits, so I'm not going to give her too much plaudits there. Gorsuch has a very funny concurrence. So TikTok requested that the law be put on hold

• 28:22Michael Liroff?

  while this case was being argued. And the Supreme Court did not grant them that. And I think it's clear from Gorsuch's concurrence that there's maybe some debate in chambers about which way to go on that. Because the majority of the concurrence is him just bitching about not having enough time to do this.

• 28:44Peter Shamshiri?

  Right.

• 28:45Michael Liroff?

  Which makes me think he was, he was on the side that we should grant the stay. We should give ourselves more time. And he lost. And he's like, well, now I'm writing a little, a little shitty buddy concurrence.

• 28:57Peter Shamshiri?

  And I have to say, I certainly, I mean, he's right. Considering, and we'll, we'll talk about this in a minute, but like, considering the importance of this case, considering how potentially precedential it might be moving forward. Whenever we're talking about the connection between the First Amendment and social media, like, yeah, you could have given yourselves a few weeks, you know? I know it's not the prosecution of a president, you know, you can't just stall it for eight months or whatever, but maybe a few weeks, guys. Maybe think about it, you know, just sort of bop this stuff around in your noggin a little bit, you know? Maybe use TikTok for a few days. See what you can learn.

• 29:39Michael Liroff?

  Yeah. Of course, it does make one interesting point and one point that is like worth discussing. One interesting point he makes is that the government submitted some evidence like under seal, the classified evidence. And he was like, the court didn't consider it and it shouldn't consider it. And Congress should do something about this. They should pass some procedural shit so that we have like ways to handle classified evidence. And I think that's, that's probably correct. And it's kind of wild that it's 2025 and they're flying by the seat of their pants with classified evidence in the Supreme Court. They don't have good procedures on it just yet. Like, like what the fuck is happening here?

• 30:20Michael Liroff?

  And the other thing was, he says, you know, the court doesn't rely on the covert content manipulation rationale. And he thinks that's right because one man's covert content manipulation is another man's editorial discretion, which is correct. And he's correct that the court shouldn't be relying on that. But it's also like, you gotta take that a step further and be like, well, if Congress is worried about editorial discretion and banning an app because of its editorial discretion.

• 30:58Michael Liroff?

  That has serious First Amendment implications that you are not grappling with. Like, you need to take this reasoning a step further. He seems to be the only person who was at least close to that realization, at the very least.

• 31:12Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah, and that was one of my big takeaways from the case, which like that the court is just not prepared to protect free speech in the social media era and maybe not even prepared to talk about it. And Gorsuch's concurrence seems to poke at that a little bit, that like, there's a lot here. When millions of people use a service to express themselves and collaborate and organize, that like, you can't, you can't just glaze over that in a shitty little opinion like this. And there are like really complicated issues here. How do you balance the free speech of the users with the fact that all of that speech gets filtered through an algorithm controlled by one company? These are complicated questions.

• 31:53Peter Shamshiri?

  They are questions that I have not seen the court, or any court, take seriously. And it's, it's a little bit disconcerting because we're basically at a point where most speech that most people are engaging in is occurring on social media. And they don't have a framework for thinking about it.

• 32:11Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 32:12Peter Shamshiri?

  So I guess we should talk about Donald Trump saving TikTok.

• 32:17Michael Liroff?

  I was in Costco the other day and I walked past a family and like the 17 year old daughter was being like, and then Trump came into office. This was before he came into office, by the way. And he's like, and then Trump came into office and said, you know, we're not going to ban TikTok. And I was just like, oh my God, like.

• 32:37Speaker 05

  The 17 year old explaining it to her parents. Yeah.

• 32:40Michael Liroff?

  17 year old explaining it to her parents. He hasn't even been inaugurated yet. And it's already like, Trump saved TikTok. It's out there.

• 32:49Speaker 05

  Yeah, yeah. On the 19th of January, when this law did come into effect, TikTok obviously was banned in the United States. Every user, if you opened up the app on the 19th, it was like the evening of the 19th, I think, got a message, oops, TikTok. Is not available in the United States. We're so sorry. And we're working really hard and hopefully President Trump will save TikTok. Was basically the message that you got. The next day, I was sitting in a clinic with law students, a legal clinic with law students. And the joy that erupted on the morning of the 20th. Somebody yelled out TikTok is back and.

• 33:34Peter Shamshiri?

  Those little morons have been refreshing it the whole night.

• 33:37Speaker 05

  Yes, they have been. And the new message that you got on TikTok when you opened the app on the 20th was, "Thank you, President Trump. President Trump has protected and saved TikTok for now. You can now use TikTok again."

• 33:53Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah, and I want to be clear. That message was up before Donald Trump was officially the president of the United States.

• 34:00Speaker 05

  Yes, yeah, yeah, but still calling him President Trump. Yeah, in both of the messages. Yeah.

• 34:04Peter Shamshiri?

  So it's not exactly clear when Trump went from supporting banning TikTok to opposing it. It happened sometime last year at the latest. When this law came to the public's attention, Trump had changed his tune. He said that he opposed a ban.

• 34:25Peter Shamshiri?

  He claimed publicly that it was because he was popular on the app, which is not really true. Recently, he said, you know, "Young people like TikTok and I won young people by 34 points", which is also not true. He lost them by like 11.

• 34:41Speaker 05

  Love to do math 45 integers the wrong way.

• 34:45Peter Shamshiri?

  Trump, for some reason or another, changed his mind and decided that he did not want to enforce the ban and announced that. So the question is, at this point, can he do that? Now, you could make the argument that he.

• 35:03Peter Shamshiri?

  Can potentially save TikTok here through relatively legal or pseudo legal means. And you can make the argument that he's engaged in a bit of lawlessness. Now, the law itself, it has this 90 day extension period, which he has availed himself of. I think he said that it's 75 days. And he has said that he won't enforce it. So even if there's no divestiture, he could simply direct the attorney general, who's in charge of enforcement, not to enforce the law. That would effectively stall out the enforcement of the law and allow TikTok to keep operating, at least in theory.

• 35:48Peter Shamshiri?

  However, there are some hiccups here. One, the law uses mandatory language. It says, "The Attorney General shall investigate," and blah, blah, blah. Shall means they have to, in legal terminology.

• 36:05Michael Liroff?

  Usually, unless it's for cops.

• 36:07Peter Shamshiri?

  That's right. So this could go to court and the court could say, no, your Justice Department has to enforce this. They have to take some affirmative steps to enforce it. Now, he could keep dragging his feet, blah, blah, blah. Who knows? The other issue, potentially a bigger issue, is that this law has a five-year statute of limitations. Presidential term is four years.

• 36:31Michael Liroff?

  Right. So like, even if Trump is true to his word, and the app stores put TikTok back in and all that, and everybody just pretends like this law doesn't exist for the next four years, if there's a different president in year five, and he decides to, or she decides to come after everybody who violated the law, they're still legally on the hook for however much money.

• 37:00Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah. The penalties for violating this law are like $5,000 per user per day. It's something outrageous that adds up. Astronomical. Adds up to, your company is gone if you violate this law. What does that mean? That means that a lot of the companies that provide services to TikTok, especially Apple, who listed on their app stores, right? Google, they also risk liability and might not want to risk that they pay billions and billions and billions, potentially trillions of dollars.

• 37:38Michael Liroff?

  Yeah, that's what I was gonna say.

• 37:40Peter Shamshiri?

  For violating the law. And so TikTok, despite being back up and active in the United States, is still not listed in the App Store, so it's not getting support. Someone needs to bring this to like some kind of conclusion that will make the lawyers at these companies comfortable in order for this to go on. So I think that's sort of the state of it. TikTok's up and running for now, but can't quite continue like this. Whether the whole Trump save TikTok narrative persists is sort of unclear because it's not entirely clear that he has done it in a lasting way, right?

• 38:12Michael Liroff?

  I did quick math on 5,000 times 170 million users, times 365 days, times four years, and it appears to be more than the gross domestic product of the entire planet over that time period.

• 38:27Peter Shamshiri?

  I don't know if that's if the per day part I made up. I might have made up the per day part, so maybe it's only 850 billion or whatever.

• 38:36Michael Liroff?

  If it's the per day, then it's like one quadrillion, 241 trillion dollars. But yeah, a lot of that's coming from being over the course of every day.

• 38:47Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah.

• 38:47Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 38:48Michael Liroff?

  So I do want to say I'm very aroused by the idea that we could just end Google and Apple just like that, though.

• 38:55Peter Shamshiri?

  The funniest possible outcome of this is that Google and Apple have to liquidate.

• 39:02Michael Liroff?

  Because they have to pay fines because they put it back in the App Store. It would be incredible. It would be so good. I'm sorry, I'm like, getting imagining it.

• 39:15Speaker 05

  That is one of those things that like, yeah, would be crazy, but it's so crazy that Trump might do it and it would be so funny. Like, you know what I mean? Like, come on.

• 39:26Peter Shamshiri?

  Remember like at the end of Fight Club when they're destroying all the credit companies? And they're like, we start from scratch. Like, that's what it would be like. Like, Apple, Google, Meta, they all disappear and we start over.

• 39:37Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 39:38Peter Shamshiri?

  I think that would be not the worst outcome here. Like, we obviously botched this. The last 20 years have been a major fuck up.

• 39:47Speaker 05

  Yeah, this meaning society.

• 39:49Peter Shamshiri?

  Let's start over. Does anyone have an idea for how to improve flip phones?

• 39:55Speaker 05

  Well, unfortunately, we should talk about why that's really not the case or won't be the case because Trump loves his cadre of oligarchs and the heads of all these stupid corporations that are ruining all of our lives. And I think that's more what's behind him, quote unquote, saving TikTok for now, right?

• 40:21Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah, the, you know, the CEO of TikTok with these messages that he put in the app is clearly sucking up to Trump. I saw a lot of people criticizing TikTok for this, blaming him for sucking up to Trump, which I guess is fair enough, but it's important to realize that this is a broader problem. This is what kleptocracy looks like. This is what a patronage system looks like. Trump got into office promising to punish his enemies and reward his friends. That means from a company like TikTok's perspective, this is the rational move. You suck up to Trump. You're going to see other companies doing this. You're going to see a lot more of this. We were just talking about Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg showed up on

• 41:05Peter Shamshiri?

  Joe Rogan with long hair, a baggy tee.

• 41:09Speaker 05

  Gold chain.

• 41:10Peter Shamshiri?

  Gold chain.

• 41:11Michael Liroff?

  Yes.

• 41:11Peter Shamshiri?

  Talking about how Facebook needs more masculine energy.

• 41:14Speaker 05

  Right. Yeah.

• 41:15Peter Shamshiri?

  Facebook, the fucking online fucking chat room.

• 41:18Speaker 05

  And that your workplace.

• 41:19Peter Shamshiri?

  Right.

• 41:20Speaker 05

  Needs more masculine energy, right? And that, you know what? Actually, I think it's good for society if we can, you know, use homophobic slurs again on the apps that I, that I run.

• 41:30Michael Liroff?

  Backed up by official policy to allow homophobic slurs, basically.

• 41:35Speaker 05

  On Facebook, like, yeah, like, they're doing it. Yeah, and it's like, you have to ask, why in the last two weeks would Zuckerberg make this 180-degree turn? I don't know Zuckerberg necessarily as part of this fucking manosphere. I know him as like a robot. He puts sunscreen on weird. He's a fucking dope, you know, like, and

• 41:58Peter Shamshiri?

  Right, he's got those empty eyes.

• 42:00Speaker 05

  Yeah, he doesn't have fucking feelings or a soul, you know, but in the last two weeks, he suddenly, you know, in this clown costume of a cool guy in 2025, talking about dicks and stuff, like, you know?

• 42:14Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah, like, this is what people are getting wrong, because a lot of people are watching this, and they're saying, you know, these tech guys were always like this, and now they get to be themselves. Now, I think there's some truth to that, certainly with some tech guys more than others. But if you look at Zuckerberg, like Riya is saying, for 20 years, the narrative is that this guy is a soulless android. He believes in nothing.

• 42:39Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 42:39Peter Shamshiri?

  That is, I think, still who he is. He just sees the wind shifting, and he's evolving to meet the demands of the new regime.

• 42:48Speaker 05

  That's right.

• 42:48Peter Shamshiri?

  When this guy, who has had zero tangible personality for two decades, shows up dressed like a Long Island goon, calling himself the Pussy King on Joe Rogan,

• 43:02Peter Shamshiri?

  you should be skeptical about this, right?

• 43:05Speaker 05

  Exactly, exactly.

• 43:06Peter Shamshiri?

  These people are pissing the ring, they are dancing for their king, right? 10 years ago, they were all pink washing and rainbow washing their companies, right? Pretending to care about gay rights and shit, because that was in. Now, they're gonna be racist and sexist, because that's in. They're gonna be like, we should be allowed to say cunt at the workplace. That's, that is what is in now, that is what makes your stupid company money. And that's what you're gonna see all the way down, like, all of these billionaires sucking up, like, this is like what oligarchy is, like,

• 43:37Speaker 05

  Exactly.

• 43:37Peter Shamshiri?

  It's a lecherous system on the public, but the relationship between Trump and the state, and these people, is like a very specific one. You bow to me in public, and I will give you the country. You can loot it at will.

• 43:56Speaker 05

  Yes, my administration will be seated behind you at my inauguration.

• 44:00Michael Liroff?

  Right, right. I've seen a lot of discourse online that's like people being frustrated about Democrats, corporations, newspapers, all seeming to bow to Trump and being like, he didn't even win, you know, a mandate. He barely won a majority. He won a plurality, you know, it was just a few hundred thousand votes across three swing states and blah, blah, blah, all this shit. And that's all correct and none of it matters, right? What matters is that he's in power and he's going to use that power to reward his friends and punish his enemies. And we know that he's fucking released all the January 6 rioters. He released Stuart Rhodes. He released

• 44:45Michael Liroff?

  the Oath Keepers. He's already doing it. He's promised it. For two years, he's been saying, I'm going to get back in power.

• 44:52Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 44:52Michael Liroff?

  And I'm going to put, you know, Liz Cheney on trial for treason and I'm going to free the brave patriots who tried to stop the election fraud and all that. And now he's going for it. And people either want to get in on the looting and are sort of cozying up to him, or don't want to be targeted by him and so are cozying up to him. Either way, that's what they're doing.

• 45:15Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 45:16Michael Liroff?

  They're scared of him.

• 45:17Peter Shamshiri?

  That's why the New York Times are like Elon Musk makes hilarious gesture during inauguration speech rather than calling it what it is. Everyone's scared. No one wants to get humbled by an authoritarian.

• 45:31Michael Liroff?

  Right.

• 45:32Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's exactly it. It's not just a system in which he rewards his current friends. It's where he leverages that system in which he rewards his current friends in order to make new friends, in order to force the media, heads of massive corporations, the CEO of TikTok, the CEO of Meta, et cetera, to cozy up to him in a way that they hadn't before and be beholden to him in a way because they in turn expand their political power and their influence on the American system of governance and our society and their control over all of us by cozying up to him. This is a quid pro quo in the most basic sense. This is how he operates. This is how he runs the government.

• 46:12Michael Liroff?

  Yeah, I think also it probably wasn't as bad in his first term because a lot of people thought he would be one and done and out of politics forever. But now I think people are like, he's a fixture. And you know, he might not even be leaving in four years.

• 46:28Peter Shamshiri?

  Yeah, and there's eight years of culture war bullshit rattling around everyone's brains. And it feels like we cannot root this man out.

• 46:38Speaker 05

  Right.

• 46:39Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 46:39Peter Shamshiri?

  And I think to the CEOs, to the oligarchs, it's like, do you want to spend the next four years fighting this psycho?

• 46:49Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 46:49Peter Shamshiri?

  Or do you want to put on your gold chain?

• 46:53Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 46:54Peter Shamshiri?

  And pretend that you're cool? Because that's all it takes.

• 46:56Speaker 05

  For Zuckerberg, it's a completely amoral decision.

• 46:59Peter Shamshiri?

  Right.

• 46:59Michael Liroff?

  This is probably the last time I'll say this because it's kind of old news at this point, but it was, he was on the mat, he was down, and there was a chance to fully take him out forever of American political life. And Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer and Jeffries and Pelosi and Merrick Garland let him back up off the mat. And now this is the world we live in now.

• 47:30Speaker 05

  Yeah, he got to remain a central figure, if not the central figure still of American politics for another four years while he was out of office.

• 47:37Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 47:37Speaker 05

  So, yeah.

• 47:38Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 47:39Speaker 05

  You know, we're already talking about it, but there's a huge political fumble, specifically around TikTok, that the Democrats have committed.

• 47:48Michael Liroff?

  Yes.

• 47:48Speaker 05

  They dropped the ball. This is a massive L. This is a huge fucking flop to continue their fucking flop era on TikTok specifically, that they pursued passing this legislation and that in, you know, the final days of the administration, Joe Biden didn't do what he could have done to save TikTok. Just let it go and handed the easiest layup to Donald Trump.

• 48:17Michael Liroff?

  Yep.

• 48:17Speaker 05

  For Donald Trump to take credit for quote unquote, saving TikTok.

• 48:21Peter Shamshiri?

  And be correct.

• 48:23Speaker 05

  Yes.

• 48:24Peter Shamshiri?

  This is something that has been driving me nuts because it's one thing for Donald Trump to take credit for something that happened. Like, if the economy is good for the next two years, the person responsible is probably more Joe Biden than Donald Trump, and Trump is going to take credit. And when someone points that out. You have permission to roll your eyes and be like, Trump didn't actually do that. Right. But Trump is probably going to save TikTok.

• 48:54Michael Liroff?

  Yes.

• 48:54Peter Shamshiri?

  And for all of the reasons that this law reflects a violation of the First Amendment, in my mind, namely, the fact that 170 million Americans use it to speak.

• 49:06Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 49:06Peter Shamshiri?

  It's incredibly shoddy politics to just rip that away from 170 million people.

• 49:13Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 49:13Peter Shamshiri?

  With this 1995-ass law, like, oh, national security, you better divest. Like, what are you talking about? What are you doing?

• 49:24Michael Liroff?

  I've been thinking about, like, what even are the national security concerns? The best I can come up with is something like China wants to do an invasion of Taiwan. And they're afraid that the TikTok algorithm will somehow get the pro Gaza youth on the side of China rather than Taiwan. That's the best I got. And I just, I don't find that very persuasive. Like, if that's it, if that's it, like, Trump first got interested in banning TikTok

• 50:02Michael Liroff?

  because, like, a K-pop band used it to organize by reserving a bunch of seats at one of his rallies so that they thought they'd have a bunch of people and then the rally was empty. And he was upset about that. And the Democratic Party was like, you know what? He was on to something there. He had something going there. Like, it's the stupidest fucking, I cannot believe it. Like, I cannot believe it. It's like banning the NBA or the NFL, like.

• 50:34Peter Shamshiri?

  You're stripping half the country of something that they enjoy. And not just that, but is immediately tangible to them every single day.

• 50:45Michael Liroff?

  Yes.

• 50:45Peter Shamshiri?

  And what you give them in return is a completely speculative and abstract notion about national security.

• 50:54Michael Liroff?

  Right.

• 50:54Peter Shamshiri?

  That's the political trade-off here. You bumbling morons. That's ridiculous. You absolute fucking idiots. You did literally nothing here. And by the way, what's gonna happen is like, if what Congress wants to happen, happens, what'll probably happen is some- Domestic right winger picks up control of the TikTok algorithm. And then not only are you the party that lost TikTok, but what remains of TikTok becomes yet another right wing social media platform that fucks your party over.

• 51:32Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 51:33Peter Shamshiri?

  It's too much.

• 51:34Michael Liroff?

  I'm not even sure TikTok is a net benefit on society.

• 51:38Speaker 05

  Like, yeah, I was just about to.

• 51:40Michael Liroff?

  I do think it makes people stupid. It definitely like seems to push like a lot of people into feeling like disengaging from politics. This is all vibes, though. I haven't seen lots of data on this one way or the other. I'm open to that argument. I don't think that's enough. I don't think that's a good enough argument. We elected Trump in 2016 before TikTok even existed in the United States. January 6th was organized mainly on like Facebook and Telegram and shit. The YouTube funnel to like right wing radicalization is well documented.

• 52:18Speaker 05

  It's two videos of separation. Yeah.

• 52:20Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 52:21Speaker 05

  Yeah. On the algo on YouTube.

• 52:23Michael Liroff?

  TikTok is certainly not unique, even if it's the worst of the bunch. Making it disappear is just moving those people to other platforms that are bad. And if you take something that 170 million people enjoy away from them, there are just obvious political risks with that, like so obvious. It's insane that I even need to like say that. And a risk that big needs some justification of like a potential windfall, a potential political windfall. And what is it? What is it that people get off TikTok and are on Facebook and Twitter? Or X, the app formerly known as Twitter instead?

• 53:08Michael Liroff?

  Like, what's the benefit? What's the social benefit? There's none. It's China doesn't have your data anymore. Except they still have all this data anyways.

• 53:18Peter Shamshiri?

  Right. We are very worried about China having your data. Please, please give it to a small set of American perverts.

• 53:29Michael Liroff?

  Right.

• 53:30Peter Shamshiri?

  In order to protect national security.

• 53:32Michael Liroff?

  Give it to the guy who's draining his own son's blood and injecting it in himself to stay young.

• 53:38Speaker 05

  What's he the CEO of?

• 53:40Michael Liroff?

  Oh, I don't know. He's, I just know he's a tech guy.

• 53:43Speaker 05

  Yeah, yeah. Amazon has all my data. Temu has all my data. Like, come on.

• 53:50Peter Shamshiri?

  Truly couldn't give a shit about the data justification. And it's, yeah, it's just too little, too late.

• 53:56Michael Liroff?

  Yeah.

• 53:57Speaker 05

  I don't shop on Temu, by the way, but just saying. They probably do still have my fucking data.

• 54:03Peter Shamshiri?

  Now, before we go, I just want to quote Nancy Pelosi on the floor of the House when arguing for this bill. She said, quote,

• 54:15Michael Liroff?

  This is not an attempt to ban TikTok. It's an attempt to make TikTok better. Tic-tac-toe, a winner.

• 54:24Speaker 05

  Jesus Christ.

• 54:26Peter Shamshiri?

  Wise words from Nancy Pelosi. Tic-tac-toe.

• 54:30Speaker 05

  Good God.

• 54:33Speaker 05

  I'm begging you to take me out to pasture.

• 54:36Peter Shamshiri?

  I keep saying it. Hit me with the no country for old men cattle gun.

• 54:41Speaker 05

  I'll take it.

• 54:42Peter Shamshiri?

  Take me out. Nice and smooth. No exit wound. Thank you.

• 54:54Peter Shamshiri?

  Next week, we're doing a premium mailbag episode. We will be answering your questions. We thought, you know, you probably have some that you might want answered during times like these. And then the week after that, McCutcheon v FEC, another case about money and politics, which we thought would perhaps be relevant in the oligarchy era. Follow us on social media at 54pod. Subscribe to our Patreon, patreon.com/54pod. All spelled out for access to premium and ad-free episodes, special events, our Slack, all sorts of shit. We are the only source of Supreme Court news.

• 55:37Speaker 05

  That's correct.

• 55:38Peter Shamshiri?

  That does not suck up to Donald Trump.

• 55:39Speaker 05

  That's correct.

• 55:42Peter Shamshiri?

  We'll see you next week.

• 55:43Michael Liroff?

  Bye. Bye, everybody.

• 55:50Michael Liroff?

  Five to Four is presented by Prologue Projects. This episode was produced by Dustin DeSoto. Leon Nefok and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations. If you're not a Patreon member, you're not hearing every episode. To get exclusive Patreon-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at patreon.com/54pod.