David Feldman (2:53)

David Roddy Reed is professor Emeritus at the University of California, San Diego, where he taught classes on modern cultures and societies in the United States, France and Japan since 2008. He's researched and published on trauma, daily life and political intimidation in the United States and Europe. He is a member of Indivisible.org San Francisco, and he hosts the blog Unsafe Thoughts on the Fluidity of Politics and Dangerous Times. He's also the author of Confronting Political Intimidation and Public A Handbook for the Trump Era and Beyond. Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Professor Roddy Reed.

Roddy Reed (3:37)

I'm delighted to be here and be given the opportunity to present my book and its ideas to a wider audience, especially to activists, as we approach no Kings Day this coming Saturday.

Ralph Nader (3:49)

Welcome indeed with that preface. And I want to say to our listeners, do you know anybody who hasn't been bullied sometime in their life, whether in elementary school or on a playing field or walking home? This book focuses on political intimidation and bullying. Bullying is part of the culture, and Professor Reed shows that it's reaching widespread prevalence in the political arena, in the media and in the workplace. Now, to show how important this book is, listeners, I just happened to read the first page of the Washington Post today, which is October 15th, and we see that we are dictated to as a nation by the number one political bully in American history, Donald J. Trump. And he makes no bones about it. I want to read you a couple paragraphs from this article to illustrate. The headline is Federal Firings Target Services for the most Vulnerable. Most of the jobs cut during the shutdown shared a mission of helping at risk Americans and officials say employees who help regulate hazardous waste, inspectors who check the quality of federal housing, an office that makes sure students with disabilities get the help they need. These are among the targets of the Trump administration's latest round of federal layoffs undertaken during a government shutdown now entering its third week. End quote. Now, listeners, here is what the Donald Trump said about this. He makes no bones about his bullying. He said he was laying off people that the Democrats want. Those are his words. People that the Democrats want. Adding any additional cuts would just deepen pain for the political left. And the article continues to give more examples of the most vulnerable social safety net beneficiaries that are being targeted as priority goals to reduce the cuts. He doesn't cut like most bullies. He doesn't cut the rich and powerful, the corporate welfare, the corporate criminals, and the corporate contractors with the government that are overcharging the government enormous amounts of taxpayer money. Now, with this background, make your thesis from your book, Confronting Political Intimidation and Bullying, A Handbook for the Trump Era and beyond. You not only described the scene which is now deeply embedded in our country, because the prime visible person in our country is the bully in chief, Donald Trump.

Roddy Reed (6:33)

Okay, there are many things about my book I think most people, as you said earlier, Ralph, most people have been bullied in one form or another. I think most people think they know what it is. But I also think what's been happening since January has been a radical extension of what was already experienced between 2017 and 2021. So in terms of my book, my thesis is this. I think we still have trouble acknowledging what's actually happening, particularly our established institutions that are supposed to protect us and safeguard us. Many of their leaders just are struggling with the sheer verbal and physical violence that's been unfurling in front of our very eyes. And so my book wants to do several things, Ralph. It wants to acknowledge what's happening and validate our experience of it. And this experience is one of, you know, distress and some cases, panic. And it also has a psychic component. Many people are exhausted by it all, and it's transformed our daily life to the point that I think one of the goals is quite clearly is to disenfranchise people such that they don't want to go out and participate in civic life. Now, what's also lacking is, I think, words that actually reflect that experience and reflect what's going on right now. But I think the book actually offers a way to understand how bullying works and perhaps a way to see past it such that we can resume our activism and move forward.

Ralph Nader (8:04)

Well, you underestimate the impact of this book, which is full of examples, listeners. He talks about the way the bullying of Iraq with violence and overthrowing the government in Iraq, odious as it was with our support in the past, the Hussein dictatorship, but they killed a million Iraqis who were innocent and left millions more destitute, without homes, no public services that are plaguing Iraqis to this day. He talks about how the bullying from the White House is feeding the police state that is emerging and transferring that kind of bullying to the outrageous behavior of Trump's ICE enforcers, who before Trump were always pretty vigorous, but now they have the bully in chief as an example, as an endorser and as a backer. And so he gives foreign and domestic examples of. Of how it is shredding the rule of law without constitutional safeguards or guardrails. In fact, you say on page two, referring to Trump, quote, he unleashed frightening public dynamics that have been slowly emerging for some time and inflaming public life. End quote. So what would you like most for our listeners to know from your mistake? Many chapters in your book, before we get to the responses that you're recommending.

Roddy Reed (9:35)

We really need to understand the context where all this is coming from, and you just gave a supreme example of it, the invasion of Iraq. I would also say it was followed by the war on terror, which I think was a early peak moment of political intimidation and bullying in the last 30 years. And I think with that understanding of a wider context, both in terms of the legacy of the past, but also where it spread, as you said earlier, in the workplace and in the media, that will give people a chance to not quite step back, because where can we step back to? But a chance to put it in perspective, such that when it happens, we're not caught off guard, we're not caught unawares. And so in that sense, we're better prepared to respond to these different acts of political bullying and public intimidation. So, for example, understanding, say, where the current occupant of the White House comes from, everyone talks about his different qualities, but the occupant may be a violent narcissist, for example, but not every narcissist can become CEO, folk hero, Republican nominee, and then president twice. He has been able to surf on a larger cultural and social situation that's been building for 35 years. And so I think the book will help people get a better sense of what's going on and a better sense of how to respond.

Ralph Nader (11:04)

Bullying is associated with not just forms of physical intimidation, censorship, firing people, but stereotyping and scapegoating. Bullying expresses itself in, in, for example, Trump's singling out so called leftists on college campuses for being expelled and other sanctions. While he ignores that the main bullying on campuses in recent months has been associated with assaults on students and faculty who are speaking out against the Netanyahu genocide in Gaza. In other words, the people who want peace, who want humanitarian aid, who want conflict resolution, are being bullied and scapegoated. And that is Trump's motif. Tell us about why Congress and the courts aren't holding them to account. How does the bullying manifestation affect those two powerful branches of government?

Roddy Reed (12:06)

Well, to start with Congress, it's pretty quite simple in the sense that there were Republican majorities, right? And one of the things that Trump did, against all expectations, beltway insiders, was that he transformed the Republican Party. He made it his own. And most people thought, oh, you know, the dignity of the office, the routines of running the country would somehow moderate, change his behavior. But in fact, I would argue it stimulated it. When it comes to, say, the Democrats, they are very wedded and they trust the institutions to counter and to preserve democracy. Unfortunately, and I think we all know this through the appointees of federal district judges and particularly three ultra conservative Supreme Court judges. He's what Kim Lane Sheppel of Princeton University, who's an expert on Orban, the president of Hungary and his party and their takeover of government. She points out, well, Trump has followed somewhat similar game plan, which is to capture the judiciary. To capture the judiciary. And that's certainly true of the Supreme Court. We've seen federal district judges actually ensue injunctions and so on and so forth. But what did the Supreme Court do? They've removed their power of nationwide injunctions. So you now have not only a lawless executive branch, but I think you can also argue a lawless judicial branch at the level of the Supreme Court. So that makes it extremely difficult for these institutions to respond meaningfully and powerfully. And then staying with the Democrats for another minute, Ralph, I think they trusting as they do in the rule of law and many of them are lawyers by training the Democratic politicians. After all, they have great difficulty dealing with challenges to the rule of law that come from a violent source. And they just are unprepared. And I think to this very day, and this is one of my recommendations toward the end of my book, is one thing that people are trying to oppose the current regime is to acknowledge political violence for what it is and how it works. Otherwise, if you don't, you're not going to be able to respond, and it's not easy. My book asks as many questions as it provides suggestions and answers.

Ralph Nader (14:20)

I want to bring to your attention something you probably are not aware of. Remember all these close votes in Congress on the nomination for the Department of Defense, hegseth the nomination for head of Health and Human Services, RFK Jr. And others came down to two or three votes, sometimes one vote.

Roddy Reed (14:40)

Yes.

Ralph Nader (14:40)

Well, do you have any idea of how they change those votes? The answer is physical, violent threats over the Internet to the senators and their families. There's a network out there that can be triggered by Trump and the Trumpsters and Senator Tillis and Senator Collins, for example, and others have alluded to it, but they don't want to talk too openly about it because they'll just feed this vicious response through the Internet by anonymous accusers and slanderers and threat people who engage in threatening even the families, the children. Are you aware of that? Well, I. And that's what changed the vote. That's what changed the vote.

Roddy Reed (15:25)

That's very interesting. I didn't know this. What seems to me something of an inside story. I certainly given the fact that these, these forces do not respect any limits of any kind, ethical, political, social, psychological. It's wide open. Anything is possible on their part. That's part of the intimidation. You know, anything's possible and you don't know when it's going to happen. But you can certainly predict a bit around a close vote. Well, those forces are going to come to the fore and apply pressure in the way they know how to do it. And that can involve physical threats. We've seen it in presidential campaigns already in 2016 and 2020, and we're seeing it in spades today across the spectrum of our society, this proliferation of physical threats. So I didn't know that inside story, but I'm not surprised.

Ralph Nader (16:15)

But you're a social scientist. Some of us in Washington wonder when are we going to hear from the political science professors collectively about the tyranny that this political bullying is nourishing, starting with Trump in the White House? I haven't heard from them. When are we going to hear from the anthropologists? When are we going to hear from the sociologists? Some of the historians have spoken up. But do you see that political bullying creates a penumbra of self censorship from these various social science disciplines? And they are not defending the basic traditions of tolerance and free speech as they should, given their knowledge.

Roddy Reed (16:55)

Well, in the past, these associations, the American Sociological association, certainly the Anthropological association, they've taken stances on public issues, you know, issues of public import and concern. Today the universities, in a way that was not even the case back during the Red Scare in the early 50s, under direct attack. Not simply certain professors, though that's obviously the case in certain students. But the very well being and the very economic basis of these universities is under attack.

Russell Mokhiber (17:26)

So.

Roddy Reed (17:27)

So that would give pause to a lot of academics. I can't speak for those associations. But one thing that struck me, Ralph, and this is across the board, not simply universities as such. I mean, how come the universities aren't coming together and how come they're not coming together to mount a counter response in law schools? Yes, law schools and so on. And then if you look at even the Democratic Party as a party is not speaking, it's individual politicians for the most part, as a party, they're not speaking with one voice. Around the shutdown, they've come together a little more, but otherwise they've been absent as a unified single voice. So that's, I don't know. These institutions, I believe, Ralph, are failing us in different ways, partly because they can't speak with a single voice and they're reluctant to. And that's partly due to these direct attacks on them. The universities haven't experienced that in a long, long time.

Ralph Nader (18:21)

So much for the security of tenure. It doesn't seem to be a sufficient shield, this bullying pattern, the kind of threats that legislators get. And that was part of the unspoken equation on Capitol Hill. This has changed the whole range of potential resilience, moral courage. What do you see about the lack of moral courage in our society? How do you relate to that deterioration in our culture?

Roddy Reed (18:48)

Well, it is clearly a deterioration. I think it testifies to the power of this new, harsh, toxic environment where publicly, it's very difficult to pursue politics in the way that we're used to, have been used to. And so I think, again, going back to the Democratic Party, speaking with one voice is something they just don't do and haven't done or rarely done. And I think that extends also to. To maybe not only other organizations, but within the party, to certain groups. What's broken down is, as you point out, is a collective response, organized group response. Now, in the absence of that, this is where no King's Day and other activities come to the fore. They're trying to restore collective action. They're trying to restore the public realm as a place for politics, dignity, safety and shared purpose. And that's been lost. And so this is where the activists and civically engaged citizens and residents come in. They're having to supplement or even replace what these institutions traditionally have been understood to do. It's exhilarating, but it's also a sad moment.

Ralph Nader (20:01)

Well, in your book, you say, quote, offers a unique guide to the strategies and dynamics of political intimidation and public bullying, how they work, the dangers they present, the snares and traps and envelop their targets, and the lessons to be learned. And you continue saying, I hope to provide some shared protective mental armor and achieve greater political resilience in these trying times. And you offer 13 ways. Do you want to discuss the nature of these 13 waves that you offer in your conclusion? This is a very readable book, by the way, listeners.

Roddy Reed (20:39)

I'd be happy to. As I said earlier, the first thing that needs to be done is just name it, not debate the acts of political violence and what I also would even call domestic terrorism for what they are and their destructive effects that they've had on our lives and on the whole political process, as you've been underscoring. And then part of that and naming it, is educating the public and the press. And this is again where the absence of the Democratic Party with its vast resources, both nationally and locally, could be put to good use educating the public. Trade unions used to educate their members, who were quite numerous, you know, 50 years ago, they've been in decline. But one of the purposes of trade unions was to educate politically their own people. So I think that's something we also need to do. Another thing, if you like, is looking back to the past. Just understand the legacy of political violence that's been visited on liberals and progressives. And I'm thinking of the 60s and the. The assassinations and murders of civil rights workers, politicians, and so on and so forth. I think that's cast a deep dark shadow over the Democratic Party and also liberals and progressives generally. They're haunted. Particularly our generation, Ralph. And I'll include myself with your generation, such that, say, for example, when the 2000 elections were decided by the Supreme Court, five to four, okay, they told everyone to go back and resume their lives. They did not mount a process, and they certainly did not name this political violence for what it was, which is a judicial coup. Okay? So anyhow, naming it and educating is important also. Just as important is to acknowledge right wing violence in all its forms. Break it down. And we've been doing that a little bit in this hour.

Ralph Nader (22:30)

What impressed me with the 13 was it basically outlined the contours of assertive civic personality on the part of the people around the country to be more assertive, more demanding, more organizing, take these things more seriously, break your routine from your private life, which is being damaged by what's going on in the public arena. But you outline it very well because you also add tactics like examine points of vulnerability of the opponents, develop a nimble politics of anticipation, develop a rapid response infrastructure. Spend some time imagining the unimaginable. Like how many times when we were growing up, we heard people say, well, look at all those dictators overseas. It can't happen here. Well, it is happening here. We have not just an authoritarian president, which is what the Democrats still are saying. We have an outright fascist dictator. I mean, he brags about it. He says he can do whatever he wants under Article 2. He boasts about it. He's not like Nixon hiding in a corner. He gives us the evidence for impeachability every day, every hour, and still the resistance is not building up. He's still about 45% in the polls, as you point out, even though many Trump motors are being harmed by all these social safety net cuts and Medicaid and food stamps and meals on Wheels and Head Start and not to mention all the health and safety regulatory agencies that have been in effect shuttered, the closing of the Department of Education and Services for students, cutting back on scientific research, all this canceling contracts for renewable energy, all this harms the Trump supporters. You point out in your book that the development of this kind of bullying ends up attacking the very people who supported you and got you into office. You cease discriminating. Even though Trump now is focusing on Democratic cities and Democratic blue states, he's harming people in the red states as well. The bulk of the contracts, tens of billions of dollars from renewable energy, are in southern states. The main instrument now to deal with public bullying is Congress. Everything, whether they're marches, demonstrations, call outs, have got to focus on 535 men and women who put their shoes on every day the way we do. But they are recipients of enormous delegated authority under the Constitution. And the people have to remind themselves that the Constitution starts with we the people, not we the Congress, not we the corporations, not we the White House. And so I urge you, as you publicize this book, that that is the main lever remaining to turn around the executive and judicial branches because of the enormous preferential authority given to the Congress by our founders compared to the other two branches, which are more subsidiary, actually. Congress. Sole power to tax violated by Trump. Sole power to spend violated by Trump and validated by the six rogues on the Supreme Court confirming nominees for the judiciary. Sole powers in Congress treaties power in Congress Investigations power in Congress. Enormous oversight power unused or little used over the executive branch, from the Department of Defense to the Department of Interior.

Roddy Reed (26:11)

I couldn't agree with you more. As I said, my focus is more about dealing with political violence and intimidation. But there are organizations out there that have, like indivisible.org that I belong to and have belonged to for the last seven years. They were very much focused on Congress initially. Very, very focused on Congress. Some of the most effective pressure on Congress has these town halls where citizens and residents have shown up, also with many Republicans, to express their outrage at the current actions of the executive branch and the Republican Congress that startled the Republican representatives and put them on notice. So that's a real point of vulnerability, those town halls, which of course they want to cancel or otherwise not hold. So that's one point that I do underscore a little bit in my book. But I couldn't agree with you more that Congress is where we start and it's maybe where we end.

Ralph Nader (27:12)

So we're talking with Professor Emeritus Roddy Reed, who taught at the University of San Diego for many years. His book is Confronting Political Intimidation and Bullying, A Handbook for the Trump Era and Beyond. I urge you to get it. And let's go to Steve.

Steve Skrovan (27:34)

Professor Reid, could you go through some of the other points of the 13 points of how to confront the bullies? I'm particularly interested in the playground bully. You're supposed to punch in the nose, and I guess that has to do with vulnerabilities. What's your equivalent of punching the bully in the nose?

Roddy Reed (27:51)

Well, I think there are ways to, in a sense, intimidate bullies in return. As Ralph was pointing out, the less of a response, direct response, combative response, firm response, there is, the more bullies, and this is true of the schoolyard as well as at Washington, D.C. the more they're encouraged to go further and further and further. So I'm not advocating violence in my political philosophy, but I am advocating, and this is perhaps I disagree a little bit with Ralph here, I think. And many of these, you know, no King Day rallies, they're local, they're all over the country. They're not just in Washington or in the large metropolitan areas, but the physical presence, the literal physical presence, and the demonstration of courage. And today it's even more important because with the militarized intimidation that we're seeing in the streets, not only are there ICE agents, but. But there's the National Guard and there's obviously the army or particularly the Marines. A physical courage in vast numbers is a physical response to not only verbal but also physical bullying. And there are no guarantees in this. And I think Ralph's quite right to say this is can't be the end, all of a response. We know, for example, from the massive demonstrations around the Iraq War, the imminent Iraq War invasion. In the end, it didn't stop. More recently, the massive rallies and demonstrations, March for our Lives, for gun control, did not result in new legislation. So I'm not sure there's quite the equivalent of a punch in the nose. It would, in my view, play into the hands perhaps, of the current regime that's looking to declare a state of insurrection.

Robert Falmouth (29:32)

Right.

Roddy Reed (29:33)

So you have to be strategic and not. And there's no fixed rule. I think it's a bit more local and it's also dependent on circumstances, and circumstances keep changing. You know, we're in a rapidly moving political situation.

Ralph Nader (29:47)

Well, the opportunities to respond to Trump that have been missed are really astonishing. Like, he got a lot of press nicknaming all kinds of people, starting with his political opponents during the primary debates. In 2016, you know, little Marco, lying Ted Cruz. And they never responded with similar nicknames. The Democrats have never tagged Trump with a nickname, even though his last name rhymes with a lot of accurately pejorative associations. I'll give you an example. At many of his rallies, he would urge people to say lock her up, meaning Hillary Clinton. Then they would all say, lock her up. It just went on and on. One day he went to the Nationals baseball game in Washington and he's sitting there watching the game and suddenly erupts the call by many there, lock him up. Lock him up. Well, surprise, surprise, he stopped doing that with his crowds. The way you deal with a bully, among other ways, is to give him a taste of his own medicine. You don't have to be physical about it, just give him a taste. He makes accusations and about people killing people. No evidence whatsoever. Like he accused a major person on morning television, Morning Joe of killing somebody in Florida. Just like that, out of pure cloth. There's no response to Trump in terms of tit for tat. That's a failure of tactics. He gets these big cap letters in the New York Times. How come he's the only one who has the New York Times and Washington Post repeat the capital letters to emphasize his points? How about demanding that they do capital letter reporting for the Democratic politicians? They haven't done that. And so that just encourages him to be more and more aggressive. As you can see, week by week he goes from an autocracy to a police state. And you know what's after that? It's terrorist. He now has asserted that he can kill anybody in the world on his own. Say so. He's already killed 27 people in five or six boats in the Caribbean without any evidence and without any due process. Some of them were heading in the opposite direction than the US to begin with. He is completely out of control. He's the consummate outlaw in the White House, in American history. And the language to counter him, his feeble, weak, non existent. He must wonder how stupid the Democrats are. In his private quarters, he must chuckle with his buddies about how totally inept they are in responding. And never mind not landsliding the most corrupt, cruel, vicious, ignorant, self enriching Republican party in history. We're out of time. We've been speaking with Professor Emeritus Radi Reed, author of the brand new book Confronting Political Intimidation and Bullying. And before we close, Professor Reid, give us the contact number for your blog which you call, quote, unsafe thoughts on bullying and the fluidity of politics in Dangerous Times. What's the website?

Roddy Reed (33:07)

Okay, the website is pretty simple. It's my first and last name, so I'll spell that for you. It's R O D D E E Y R E I D. So Roddy reed.squarespace. so it's s q u a r e space.com and that will take you to my website. And there you'll have everything from my blog to direct links to the book and where to buy it and other things. So I urge your readers to go there. They also can find the book on bookshop. Some local bookstores also carry it. And then there's another important web source platform that sells books beyond Amazon, fairly new, and it's called IngramSpark.com that's I N as in Nancy Gr a M as in MarySpark.com and you can find the book there as well.

Ralph Nader (34:04)

Well, thank you very much, Professor Reed and listeners. Call up your local radio station and ask if they would interview Professor Reed around the country. Thank you very much.

Roddy Reed (34:14)

Thank you very much, Ralph.

Steve Skrovan (34:17)

We've been speaking with Professor Roddy Reed. We will link to his work@ralphnaderradiohour.com up next. Join us for an update on the state of Internet anonymity as well as the risks AI poses to children with Professor Robert Falmouth. But first, let's check in with our corporate crime reporter, Russell Mulcaiber.

Russell Mokhiber (34:35)

From the National Press building in Washington, D.C. this is your Corporate Crime Reporter Morning minute for Friday, October 17th, 2025. I'm Russell Mulchyber. Tech billionaire Peter Thiel recently warned that Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and other critics of technology or artificial intelligence are legionnaires of the Antichrist. That's according to a report in the Washington Post. Thiel argued that those who propose limits on technology development not only hinder business but also threaten to usher in the destruction of the United States and an era of global totalitarian rule. In the 1718th centuries, the Antichrist would have been a Dr. Strangelove, a scientist who did all this sort sword of evil crazy science. Thiel said in the 21st century, the Antichrist is a Luddite who wants to stop all science. It's someone like Greta or Eliezer, he said, referring to Thunberg. And Eliezer Yudkowski, a prominent critic of the tech industry's approach to AI for the corporate crime reporter, I'm Russell Mulkheimer.

Steve Skrovan (35:34)

Thank you, Russell. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. I'm Steve Scrovan along with David Feldman, Hannah and Ralph. It's always a pleasure to welcome back the original Nader's raider.

David Feldman (35:44)

David Robert Falmouth worked as a naders raider from 1968 to 1973, in the early days of the consumer movement. He went on to become the Price professor of Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego, where He taught for 47 years until his retirement earlier this year. And he founded their Children's advocacy institute in 1983. Since then, the institute has sponsored 100 statutes and 35 appellate cases involving child rights, and today it has offices in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. is also the co author of the leading law textbook, Child Rights and Remedies. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. ROBERT falmouth, thanks.

Ralph Nader (36:33)

Yeah, welcome the you were early on in raising the dangers of anonymity, especially in the Internet. You wrote some years ago an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg about it, and he never responded to you. The subject now has reemerged with the virulence of what's called anonymous speech on the Internet in an era of Trump. And there have been articles written saying that it's not all bad and it's not all good. You have anonymity that is positive. It protects whistleblowers, journalists, activists, citizens relying on anonymity to bypass surveillance and share truths the public needs to hear. Then there's the darker side, online aggression, radicalization, harassment, the kind of anonymity that far outnumbers the positive anonymous messages on our Internet today. I'm referring to an article by Alexandra Guerrilla, March 28, 2025, called the Psychology of Internet Anonymity, How Online Behavior Changes behind the Screen. Give us your views on how you would regulate anonymity on the Internet so that you diminish the bad and protect the good.

Robert Falmouth (37:51)

Well, there may be circumstances where you want someone to be able to blow the whistle without repercussions against them. Personally, I understand that, but that's not AI. AI is totally anonymous. You don't know who's talking at all. And it covers everything. Doesn't cover just blowing the whistle at all. It covers influencing children into depression, into eating disorders, into suicide, into drugs, into sex trafficking and all sorts of other things. There's no accountability. You don't know who's talking. So free speech. Yeah. There's a situation where you want to allow someone to say something, to blow the whistle on somebody without repercussion. But you can do that with all sorts legislation without having people sneak around and say things without knowing who they are. There's a real advantage in Knowing who's speaking, you know, does that person have knowledge of expertise, know anything about the subject matter? What is that person's bias? I mean, the free speech right of the audience is also important. It's not just a free speech right of the person who's emitting sounds. It's the person who's hearing those sounds and has to evaluate the merits of it. And you can't evaluate the merits very well if you don't know who's talking, who they are, what their biases, what their expertise is. You've got to know that to already evaluate what you're hearing. I'm not interested in hearing anything from anybody who's going to be secret. And the advantage and the disadvantage of children, especially, who have to hear this crap and end up doing horrible things.

Ralph Nader (39:07)

How would you go about regulating it? You know, we have articles on how anonymity has destroyed the lives of dissidents, how anonymity is used to physically threaten members of Congress to vote the way, say, Trump wants them to vote. The judges are being subjected to this anonymous verbal violence. Their own families, they've all mentioned this and indicated that it is affecting their behavior. How do you deal with that?

Robert Falmouth (39:34)

Well, first of all, I understand that AI is not just anonymity. AI is creating a person or a thing or a vehicle that can do things without any consequences to the people who created the AI. And that's not correct. I mean, sure, whistleblowers may be doing something that are good and, you know, waking people up to something that they should be woken up to, and they shouldn't be discouraged from doing so, and they shouldn't suffer consequences that would discourage them doing it. I understand that. But you can give them immunity, legally, whatever. You can make free speech a right, which it is. But to do what's going on with AI, that's a whole different world.

Ralph Nader (40:09)

And it cannot be regulated. Is that what you're implying?

Robert Falmouth (40:13)

By definition, it can't be regulated if you don't know who's talking and you.

Ralph Nader (40:16)

Don'T know where it's coming from.

Robert Falmouth (40:18)

Around the world, a good part of it is malicious. Some of it is just, you know, benign. It's just, you know, let's have some fun with this and blah, blah, blah. But much of it is malicious. And applying it to children is especially malicious and bad because children don't have the capacity yet to evaluate carefully what the consequences are. And so when someone depresses you with the character, a comic character, whatever, or in one case, it was actually a suggestion that the parents be killed, the kid murdered their parents because they were infringing upon their right to your AI.

Ralph Nader (40:50)

Do you think tort law can be applied to AI?

Robert Falmouth (40:54)

Well, yeah, we actually got legislation through that gives potentially a lawsuit legal basis for a tort lawsuit against AI. So we're working on that here. We've got about four or five statutes enacted in California. We have a Fairly recent one, SB 53. We have, unfortunately, SB 1047, which was just vetoed by the governor, which requires disclosure information about data sets used in creating AI and so forth. And that was vetoed even though it passed the legislature by a huge margin. These people have a lot of influence.

Ralph Nader (41:24)

One commentator threw the gauntlet down and he said the way tech companies are using augmented reality and AI, and I'm quoting him, to push for a totalizing physical and psychological surveillance state, aided by Congress, total inability to pass privacy protections that might rein them in. So let's look at the principal purveyors of AI and augmented reality, a few companies that everybody knows Silicon Valley and focus on regulating them. What would you do to try to get it at the source? Because that's a profitable model for them. They like anonymous clicks.

Robert Falmouth (42:06)

I think the easy remedy that doesn't solve the problem totally, but simply require the AI identify itself when it's being used. I mean, to me, that's something that should always be the case. You have a right to know. Again, free speech extends not only to the speech speaker, but also to the audience. The audience has a right to look at the information, to look at the speech and to judge something about it, to be able to evaluate it. That's part of free speech. And by the way, free speech does not include the right to lie, to deceive, you know, make money out of lies and deceit and so forth. That's all criminal offenses. So it's a mixed bag here. But you have to understand that AI is something that is that you have the right to. You should have the right to know it's happening. I mean, for one thing, you know, maybe children should not be receiving AI without parent. And nobody should be able to use AI without identifying that they are using AI.

Ralph Nader (42:55)

Well, you know, free speech protects the right to lie. It doesn't protect the right to defame with lying or otherwise just to.

Robert Falmouth (43:04)

It doesn't protect a lot of. Doesn't protect the right to deceive, defraud, to do all sorts of things to defame other people. It doesn't protect a lot of things. I mean, political speech, of course, is a whole different matter. But AI not political speech.

Ralph Nader (43:20)

You're right. I mean, deceptive advertising, for example, has been the subject of regulation and lawsuits by competitors. So, yeah, there's a whole area. Defamation, deceptive practices that cheat people. The companies try to claim free speech for that, but I think the law is not on their side so far. Let me ask you this. Is it possible now technically to identify the named source who's using anonymous speech to violently, say, threaten members of Congress? Can they trace the source to human beings? Technically. And the Internet?

Robert Falmouth (43:57)

Well, the FBI can do that. They try to do that.

Ralph Nader (44:01)

So it is possible you can pierce the anonymous veil?

Robert Falmouth (44:05)

Yes.

Ralph Nader (44:05)

So how can you put that in a system of law?

Robert Falmouth (44:08)

Well, it only exists in terms of investigation. People who can intrude into the speaker's universe.

Ralph Nader (44:16)

It doesn't seem to stop the exponential growth of anonymous threats, say, to judges and to elected officials. Just to focus on them for a moment. Is it because they don't have enough FBI agents to track these people? Making anonymous physical threats can be considered a felony or at least a misdemeanor.

Robert Falmouth (44:37)

Sure, it's a felony. My introduction didn't mention it, but I spent nine years as a white collar crime prosecutor prosecuting antitrust cases and deceptive advertising cases. And free speech doesn't help those defendants?

Ralph Nader (44:49)

Well, again, just to go a little deeper here, there are a lot of reasons for anonymity that have been pointed out in one article. For example, people feel more comfortable expressing emotions, seeking advice on sensitive matters. They want to support things in the community, but they don't want to be retaliated against in terms of the stores that they own and sell to customers. So do you see any effort in the country to deal with selective regulation of anonymity when it's bad, threatening, dangerous, but protecting privacy and free speech when it's beneficial, let's put it that way.

Robert Falmouth (45:27)

Well, I guess maybe just me, but I think people who speak, like you, for example, you speaking your whole life, identify who you are. That's my model, and I think that's one that should be revered and respected. And the right of someone to secretly complain about something or to accuse someone, why is that a big deal? Why is that a major, major, major virtue we want to perpetuate? If you want to attack somebody, say.

Ralph Nader (45:49)

Who you are, well, you do have to do that. When you write letters to the editor and they're printed in the printed edition, they don't let you, you know, write a letter to the editor anonymously. Although I've seen the New York Times once in a row time that allows anonymity. They must have given the editor a good reason to do that part of.

Robert Falmouth (46:08)

The nephew of the editor.

Ralph Nader (46:11)

It looks like California, where you work, is leading the way here. Do you want to educate our listeners about what kind of legislation, what kind of lawsuits have been filed so they can think about it in their own states?

Robert Falmouth (46:24)

Well, we have of course, working hard on making it required to identify AI when you use AI. We haven't succeeded in really major bill there. We've gotten a bill that opens the way to tort suits against AI, etc. We're trying to get some kind of protection from children because children are major victims of AI and there have been suicides. There have been all sorts of horrible things happening with children because they are very easily influenced, unfortunately. And influence, you know, especially AI is very skilled at doing that part of AI. We've been had some luck in limiting the application of AI to children, but not nearly enough yet.

Ralph Nader (47:06)

Well, what if the AI is offshore? How do you deal with that? Let's say AI is penetrating the lives of millions of children in America or politicians or judges, and it's based in a foreign country. How do you deal with that?

Robert Falmouth (47:21)

Well, maybe based in a foreign country to be able to get to the child, to be able to get to this. This country is going to have some kind of vehicle to do so which is reachable by our authorities.

Ralph Nader (47:32)

Are you recommending international treaties here?

Robert Falmouth (47:35)

Well, I think there should be international treaties. Actually. Europe is way ahead of us in this area. They actually have some checks on AI.

Ralph Nader (47:43)

Have you been able to get a response or your colleagues from anybody in Silicon Valley to their opposing any kind of restraints, even though sometimes they double talk at hearings in Congress saying that we do need regulation of AI, but we need good regulation. And then when somebody gets serious in Congress about it, they oppose it. Are they just responding with silence, stonewalling, or what?

Robert Falmouth (48:10)

Well, this is like any other area where you have legislative corruption, which is campaign contributions and lobbyists and so forth, and that's influencing our system, thanks to Citizens United and other horrible decisions by our Supreme Court, which have allowed the private takeover of our electoral system to a large extent. And so they are very powerful behind the scenes in lobbying. And we're able to win occasionally, some battles, but not all. You know, we just got a 1047 SB, 1047 vetoed, which would have required disclosing information about the data sets used for AI. So at least, you know, you know what you're drawing from, to do it, and that's been vetoed. So we, we. By the governor. So we have a mixed bag. We have some wins, but we need about 20 more wins to go with the four we've had, three or four we've had.

Ralph Nader (49:00)

What's so elusive about the rapidly emerging AI metastasis is it can create fake images and fake identities for their supporters. I mean, there's nobody off limits here. It's surprising that the media isn't bearing down on this more than it should, because the media can be a real target for this kind of AI manipulation. What do you, what do you think say about that?

Robert Falmouth (49:26)

Well, you know, you're just touching it, because right now, for example, AI could very well replicate your voice, the sound of your voice right now, which I recognize immediately as you. But AI can take that sound, that voice and put it in someone else's mouth and even take, take a picture of you speaking. So it could be you speaking with it visually and hearing, and it's not you at all. It's someone else entirely. So the, the ability to deceive, which is not part of free speech, is very much a part of AI.

Ralph Nader (49:56)

And you know, these kinds of examples that you're alluding to are spreading very rapidly. I mean, it's almost by the month. New penetrations of human autonomy, privacy, freedom, safety are being breached by reckless use of AI. And it's not just big companies. The danger of AI is it can be decentralized in terms of its users and transmitters. So how, besides identifying that something is AI, how else would you regulate them?

Robert Falmouth (50:26)

Well, you have to identify. You also should maybe have some standards on how are you using AI, what are you drawing from? AI should not be able to excuse, you know, basically deceiving who you are with voice of someone else or with a picture of someone else or whatever. I mean, you can actually, I don't know if you've seen what Trump has done with putting a sombrero on someone's head. He's using AI all sorts of ways to attack somebody by fictitiously depicting them.

Ralph Nader (50:54)

Well, explain how it could completely upend our elections.

Robert Falmouth (50:58)

Well, I mean, you can convincingly lie because someone who receives AI, how do you judge what's. Who's telling the truth, who's talking and what are they saying, what does their voice sound like and blah, blah, blah. And AI can duplicate all of that and can deceive you totally in a way that was impossible before, and they can do it now, you know, because it used to be that you put a Political bulletin on in the yard or something or somewhere in the park. That's not what it is anymore. You can now reach into the living rooms and bedrooms in front of the faces of 100 million people just like that. It's a different world. And you've got to understand that if you had that kind of world, you got to have some kind of standards in terms of what you can disclose, how you disclose it, etc, in order to. In order to preserve basic honesty and basic truth.

Ralph Nader (51:43)

Well, tiptoeing regulation is emerging in the area of making these Silicon Valley companies engage in age verification. So they protect young children.

Robert Falmouth (51:54)

That's one of our areas. Well, it's one of our areas of legislation, absolutely. It's difficult. It's difficult because a 15 year old, you know, wants to go ahead and hear the information and so forth and the 15 year old is not going to be a very good policeman on that. The parents have got to be able to do it. So you can to be able to have a system where the verifiable parent gives permission. That hasn't happened yet.

Ralph Nader (52:19)

Yeah, the word on age verification, some people say it infringes on the free speech of youngsters is it's easily circumvented by the youngsters. Is that true?

Robert Falmouth (52:30)

To some extent. I mean, you can get around it by making sure that you verify who the parents are and the parents give permission. I pretty much believe in parental control here. That's fine, but the parents ought to know what's going on and they ought to be getting copies of everything their kid receives.

Ralph Nader (52:45)

Well, one of your critics is the American Civil Liberties Union. Can you comment on that? They have first of all supported corporate personhood. They had an amicus brief in favor of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. They supported the tobacco company's right to advertise without being regulated, asserting constitutional free speech protections. All this was before the real onrush of the Internet age of anonymity. What is the ACLU doing now and are you having trouble persuading them?

Robert Falmouth (53:19)

I think they're being persuaded increasingly because of the abuses that are occurring. I mean, it doesn't support free speech. To allow someone to lie and to deceive as to who's speaking once again is a very important issue. The audience also has free speech rights.

Ralph Nader (53:33)

It's not just a speaker, that's very important listeners. The audience for TV stations, for example, has rights under the 1934 Communications Act. And people are not told about that in their civic classes, in elementary and high school. In terms of, as former Commissioner Johnson, Nick Johnson, once wrote in a book called Talking back to your TV set. Bob, tell us about the recent article you wrote earlier this year on AI and children and how people can get it.

Robert Falmouth (54:06)

Well, I mean, I've written a number of articles on the subject, but you've got AI influencing children, depressing them, leading to eating disorders, to suicide, to drugs, sex trafficking. It's all. It all comes. A lot of it comes from AI or is influenced by AI or is simulated by AI, and that's just horrible, horrible, horrible stuff going on. And that's why I like the idea of parental control, because parents, you know, are able to counter a lot of that. I'd rather have that than state control, for that matter. That's what we've been trying to do, and we've had some success. We've had some bills enacted that have some impact, but we got a lot more to go. 10:47 is the one that was vetoed by Newsom that would have had a big positive impact, and it passed by two thirds of the vote of the legislature. So. But, you know, then you get up to the governor, and all of a sudden you've got all sorts of lobbyists involved, huge, lots of money. The governor wants to run for office, for the president or something. He's going to run around and try to find millions and millions of dollars of campaign cash. And that's the source of a lot of the corruption in this country.

Ralph Nader (55:05)

Listeners should know that Bob Thomas is, if not one of the leading child advocates over the decades in the United States. He's passed many laws, actually, in the California legislature over the years. But one of the things you pioneered, before we close, Bob, was putting out a report on how. How regulatory agencies at the state level affect children. You want to elaborate that?

Robert Falmouth (55:30)

Well, yeah, it used to be a child advocate. I have another center, the Consumer Protection Policy center, which looks at regulatory agencies. And we do a report every six months on what the California regulatory agencies are doing. We have students monitoring them, going, you know, speaking in front of them, engaging in rulemaking and so forth. Very, very much involved in that, because regulatory agencies are very, very powerful, and they're completely controlled or excessively controlled by the special interests who make up the membership. So the lawyers control the bar too much, doctors control the medical board too much. And we try to be a counterforce to, on behalf of the broader, diffuse interests. Broader, diffuse future interests. That's what democracy should be defending. That's what I've been working on. And you have, too, of course.

Ralph Nader (56:13)

Thank you very much, Professor Robert Falmouth at the University of San Diego Law School.

Robert Falmouth (56:19)

Thanks, Ralph.

Steve Skrovan (56:20)

We've been speaking with Robert Felmuth. We will link to his work@ralphnaderradiowour.com I want to thank our guests again, Roddy Reed and Robert Felmuth. For those of you listening on the radio, that's our show. For you podcast listeners, stay tuned for some bonus material we call the Wrap up featuring Francesco de Santis with in case you haven't heard, a transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour substack site soon after the episode is posted.

David Feldman (56:45)

It to order your copy of the Capitol Hill Citizen Democracy Dies in Broad Daylight. It's@capitol hillcitizen.com and remember to continue the.

Steve Skrovan (56:56)

Conversation after each program. You can go to the comments section@ralphnaderradiohour.com and post a comment or question on this week's episode.

David Feldman (57:04)

The producers of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee Wirt, Hannah Feldman and Matthew Marin. Our executive producer is Alan Mc Minsky.

Steve Skrovan (57:12)

Our theme music, Stand Up, Rise up, was written and performed by Kemp Harris. Our proofreaders, Elizabeth Solomon.

David Feldman (57:17)

Join us next week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Thank you, Ralph.

Ralph Nader (57:22)

Thank you, everybody.

Roddy Reed (57:34)

This is John Cremshoe with a special.

Robert Falmouth (57:36)

Politics or pedagogy education report.

Roddy Reed (57:39)

We're back again with Sheila Lowe, handwriting expert who had an opportunity to host a conference.

Sheila Lowe (57:45)

Yes, on the 27th and 28th of September, I hosted a conference for the American Handwriting Analysis foundation and I'm the current president. This was our first international conference. We had speakers and presenters from nine countries around the world, England from India, Hong Kong, France, Canada, the U.S. nigeria and Italy.

Robert Falmouth (58:11)

And what was the topic that they were discussing?

Sheila Lowe (58:15)

Well, we were talking about handwriting and personality. So for instance, the speaker, Christina Strang from England, spoke about graphology, which is handwriting analysis and the parental role. And the one from India, Matila Nate, spoke on handwriting and transactional analysis. One from France spoke about teaching children how to write and the French method of doing that. And oh, one very topical one was the hidden power of the narcissistic personality. And that was one of the UK speakers. And then we had a delightful musical entertainment at lunch. Our official piano player, Chuck Talmadge was playing. One day he played Ravel and the next day he played Beatles. So that kept us going. At lunch on Sunday we had Etta Manley from Canada, who spoke on humor and the importance of humor and how to see it in handwriting. We had five breakout rooms on each day on different topics. Mine was on handwriting analysis software and AI. And the next day I spoke about independent publishing and other people, you know, talked about various things, like about doing quick demonstration handwriting analysis at events and all kinds of other things like that.

Roddy Reed (59:39)

AI is a topic that really deserves its own show.

Robert Falmouth (59:44)

Tell us a little bit about what's going on.

Sheila Lowe (59:47)

Two of the topics at the conference, the forensics conference I attended, addressed AI. And beyond that, I had watched a podcast with Dr. Daniel Amen, who.