you can wasn't a q&a on all of our podcasts on our new, re-c-span now radioactive. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government, our newsletter word for word recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code at the right bottom to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect anytime. host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." as funerals continue in texas,

president joe biden is calling for action in congress on gun control. republicans and democrats are talking and washington, d.c. about areas they can agree on on gun legislation, and whether anything can pass the house and senate. many plan to make pro-and anti-guns as part of their campaigns. our question for you this morning is how important are gun issues to your 2022 votes? we are opening up regular line for this conversation. that means republicans at (202) 748-8001. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading our social media on facebook at

facebook.com/c-span, on twitter @c-spanwj, and you can always follow us on instagram @c-spanwj. once again, president joe biden came out on thursday in a rare primetime address to talk about getting gun legislation from congress. the washington post had a story on what president joe biden said and i want to read a couple part of that story to you. president biden thursday called on congress to take immediate action on gun control, seeking to transform emotion and anger into change. the united states has resisted firearm limits following wrenching deadly an increasingly regular basis over the past few decades, but biden sought to challenge a feeling by some in

washington that this time could be different than the aftermath of a racist massacre and a slaughter alley -- at an elementary school. after columbine and sandy hook and charleston, after las vegas, after parkland, nothing has been done, biden says, reeling off a litany of mass killings. this time, that cannot be true. we must actually do something. i want to show you what president biden said and him laying out what his actual legislative priorities are when it comes to addressing gun violence. here is president biden from thursday. >> we need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. if we cannot, we should raise the age to purchase them from 18 to 21. strengthen background checks, and act safe storage laws and red flag laws. repeal the immunity that protects gun manufacturers from liability.

address the mental health crisis deepening the trauma of gun violence. these are rational, common sense measures. here's what it all means. all means this. we should reinstate the assault weapons ban on high capacity magazines that we passed in 1994 with bipartisan support in congress and the support of law enforcement. nine categories of semi automatic weapons were included in that, like ak-47s and ar-15's . in the 10 years and was law cut mass shootings were down -- it was law, mass shootings were down. those weapons were allowed to be sold again. mass shootings tripled. those are the facts. if you years ago -- a few years ago, the family of the inventor

of the ar-15 said he would have been horrified to know the design was being used to slaughter children and other innocent lives instead of being used as a military weapon on the battlefield as it was designed for. enough. we should limit how many rounds a weapon can hold. why shouldn't ordinary citizen be able to purchase -- should an ordinary citizen be able to purchase an assault weapon that holds 30 round magazines and let mast shooters fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of minutes? the damage is so devastating in uvalde parents had to do dna swabs to identify the remains of their children. nine and 10-year-old children. enough. we should expand background checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons and those under restraining orders. stronger background checks are something the majority of

americans, including a majority of gun owners, agree on. i also believe we should have safe storage laws and personal liability for not locking up your gun. the shooter at sandy hook came from a home full of guns. that is how he got the weapon he used to kill his mother and than murder 26 people, including 21st graders. if you own a weapon, you have a responsibility to secure it. every responsible gun owner agrees. make sure no one else can have access to it. lock it up. have trigger locks. if you do not, if something bad happens, you should be held responsible. we should have national red flag laws so a parent, teacher, counselor can flag for a court that a child or patient is

exhibiting violent tendencies works parenting suicidal thoughts, making them a danger to themselves or others. the senior senator from texas has been appointed by mitch mcconnell as his point man on legislation dealing with guns during these talks. politico has an interview with john cornyn where he talked about what he expects to come through from these talks. i will bring paragraphs of that story to you. any gun safety bill congress can pass after the shooting of 19 children and two teachers in texas will need the support of a senior senator. john cornyn, tapped as mitch mcconnell's emissary, is feeling

the pressure after years of congressional failure to get a bill done. if they send cannot agree on a legislative response, it will be embarrassing. it would feed the narrative that we cannot get things done in the public interest, he told politico in an interview. i do not believe that narrative. i believe we can get a party partisan deal done in the public interest. he is in a unique position to get the votes not just because of the latest tragedy that truck is -- struck his home state. he has previously teamed up with democrats on background check legislation. not to mention he has major influence in a gop conference where he is widely viewed as a potential successor to mcconnell. that comes out of politico and we want to know whether gun issues will be an issue for you and your upcoming 2022 vote.

lee is calling from south carolina on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: i believe it is a little too late for all the talks. we have been doing this and they have been doing these talks, talking about these issues, and nothing is getting done. it is a ball of confusion. the only thing we can do is take the ar-15, the high-powered weapon, off the streets. there is no reason for that. i believe in having something in your home and whatnot, but the style of walking around with these emblems of ar-15's is

telling us something, that something is going to unfortunately happen. host: what do you think congress should do? caller: quit talking about it and do something, eliminate the guns. what are they waiting for unless you are thinking of a war or something? host: vincent is calling from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. this whole thing about guns is politicized, even the deaths of these children. it is ridiculous. until jesus christ comes back, even jesus christ himself said pick up your sword and your moneybag. the good guys need guns to

protect themselves and their families from the bad guys. it is not a gun issue. every last woman in america should be pounding on biden and his administration to protect our children in the schools here and protect the schools like the white house is protected, like they are protected, like airports are protected. it should be about protecting our schools and there are trillions of dollars to do it, not about guns. host: what legislation do you think they should pass that would protect schools? host: pass a bill -- caller: pass a bill to finance the necessary equipment. that is the only bill. host: when you say equipment, are you talking about more guards at schools?

are you talking about gun protectors? are you talking about arming teachers? tell us what you think should be done that would protect schools more than what is being done now. caller: you said it all. depending on the school, you said it all. all of those should be implemented. host: in all schools or just some? caller: every school in america. private schools have that. a lot of us cannot afford private schools because obama stopped that. twice he voted against parents. he stopped it, obama. everything imaginable -- i was a combat medic. we had everything we needed.

ukraine is getting everything they need. our whole issue is being politicized in the wrong way. everything you said abut how to protect the school and more, that should be the concern. host: is your vote in the midterm election going to depend on what the candidate says they are going to do on schools and guns? caller: part of it, absolutely. i will just say absolutely. it looks like i will not be able to vote at all if that is the only issue because republicans are not stepping up either. they are not demanding this either. they are limp wristed now. i am going to vote but on this issue. they are purposely ignoring this issue.

the ar-15, 1% was used in the horrible deaths of people. host: we want to know how important gun issues are to your midterm vote. republicans, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. independents, your line is (202) 748-8002. there will be access on gun legislation in congress next week. house speaker nancy pelosi says there will be votes on gun legislation. she talked about this with cnbc. i will read to you what she said is going to happen. house speaker nancy pelosi said thursday lawmakers will vote on sweeping gun control bills next week in response to the series

of horrifying mass shootings in the u.s. that have left dozens dead. while several bills are expected to clear the democratic house, including a bill that would raise the legal age at which a person can purchase an assault rifle to 21 from 18, pelosi is indulging the slim chance of many pieces of that legislation passing the senate -- acknowledging the slim piece -- chance of many pieces of that legislation passing the senate. to all those in the congress who would stand in the way of saving lives, your political survival is insignificant compared to the survival of our children. we will not rest until the job is done. i want to bring to you some upcoming action and tell you about some of these bills coming from the house this week. the first will be the protecting our children act. the vote is expect it on this next week. another bill coming in the house

is the federal extreme risk protection act. it would implement a nationwide red flag law and encourage states to enact their own extreme risk loss. that is scheduled to be voted on next week. finally, an active shooter alert act, which would create an amber alert style notification during a mass shooting. that bill is coming up sometime in the weeks ahead. both bipartisan background checks -- check act and the enhanced background check act has been passed twice by the house since 2018 and defeated in the senate. we want to know whether these bills are important to your 2022 election vote. is this something you will talk to candidates about? president biden himself said there needs to be some type of action from congress in his talk

thursday night. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i just told you what i would do. question now is will the congress do? the house of representatives already pass key measures we need, expanding background checks to cover nearly all gun sales, including at gun shows and online sales. eating rid of a loophole allowing a gun sales go through after three business days even if the background check has not been completed. the house is planning more action next week. safe storage requirements, abandoning -- banning high-capacity magazines, a red flag law, codifying a ban on ghost guns they do not have serial numbers and cannot be traced. and tougher laws to prevent gun trafficking. this time we have to take the time to do something.

this time, it is time for the senate to do something. as we know, to get anything done in the senate, we need a minimum of 10 republican senators. i support the bipartisan efforts that include small groups of democratic and republican senators trying to find a way, but the fact that the majority of the senate republicans do not want any of these proposals even to be debated or come up for a vote i find unconscionable. we cannot failed the american people again -- fail the american people again. since he valley -- uvalde, there have been 20 other mass shootings in america, including yesterday in a hospital in oklahoma. a shooter to liberally targeted a surgeon using an assault weapon he bought a few hours before his rampage and left the

surgeon, another doctor, the receptionist, and a patient dead and many more injured. that does not count the carnage we see every single day that does not make the headlines. i have been in this fight for a long time. i know how hard it is. i will never give up. if congress fails, i believe a majority of the american people will not give up either. i believe the majority of you will turn your outrage into making a decision central to your wealth. host: president biden spoke thursday as another mass shooting happened last night in philadelphia, pennsylvania. i will bring you the story. three people were killed and 11 others wounded in a mass shooting late saturday night and made chaos that erupted onto

legendary blocks that have been around -- among the region's most popular gathering places. shots ring out around 11:30 p.m. it was chaos, said eric walsh, who was cloying -- closing the outdoor area of a bar. he saw a young woman collapse. people were coming off the street with blood splatters and skinned knees and elbows. we were bawling up napkins and handing them to people. officials have not released the identities of the dead, saying one was a 25-year-old man and another was a 22-year-old woman. the names and conditions of the wounded were unavailable. the mayhem appeared to stretch for several blocks, where smashed car windows were

evident. the philadelphia inquirer with three dead and 11 wounded in a mass shooting in downtown philadelphia just last night. how important are gun issues going to be to your 2022 vote? rick is calling from missouri on the independent line. caller: good morning. gun rights are hugely important to my vote. they were very important in 20 when trump was running -- 2016 when trump was running. i had doubts about him being willing to defend second amendment rights. he differently proved himself there for me. your first caller was incredible because he is what the founders had in mind as far as serving your country and thing going home after -- then going home

after a few terms. politicians have been in power -- they are in there too long. why was the second amendment put in? it is to protect states from the tyrannical government. host: do you think any new gun legislation is needed? caller: i think it is. i am fine with politicians that are in office getting together and compromising and putting some things in place on both ends, raising the age to purchase an ar-15. that is fine. there should be some legislation. i am fine with that. i would love it if politicians had term limits to serve and get out and let other people get in and run our country. host: kelly is calling from texas on the republican line. good morning. caller: hello.

how are you doing? host: go ahead. i'm doing fine. go ahead. caller: i am a lifelong republican and i believe very much in the second amendment. however, i do believe in the ban on semi and automatic weapons. i do not think those should be in private hands. that is something for the military. i was glad we had that ban on that. after the been ended, sandy hook happened 10 years ago and that was during the obama-biden administration. it puzzles me why they did not

renew that ban. host: how important is getting that ban and other legislation like that to your 2022 vote? do you plan to vote for or against candidates whether they oppose or support that ban? caller: i support that ban. i am a proponent of the second amendment. my brother and my uncle are hunters, but none of them have ever owned a handgun. none of them have ever owned an automatic or semi automatic. it has just been a rifle or shotgun for hunting. they all have hunting licenses and hunt whenever the season is. i have a friend who brings me deer sausage, which is great in the winter. they are not going to hunt with

automatics because they would turn the deer into mincemeat. these are weapons that should be for military only. these are not hunting weapons. these are mass destruction. i have never been to uvalde, but i just -- it really hit me when they had to do dna tests to identify the children for these parents that these children -- you know these parents would not be able to do an open coffin for their children. that just really -- that really got to me. these weapons should not be available to regular people and just be for military only if we

have to help ukraine against putin or some like that. these are not hunting. these will turn you into mincemeat. host: mike is calling from reston, virginia on the democrats line. caller: good morning. congress has the nra under big donors. unless finance reform happens, all these legislation will help a little bit but not much unless we have complete ban on ar-15 and assault weapons. any weapon that shoots 20 bullets in one minute, that is an assault weapon. unless we do that, nothing will change. you do not know the person. you do not know at one moment

the psyche of that person. in one minute, something happens. easy access to guns kills people. a complete ban is the solution. host: let's talk to john, calling from tennessee on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am 72 years old, and i was in vietnam just before they invented the ar-15. it was created to kill people, not deer, bear, or anything else, to kill people. that is with the gun is being used for today, to kill a lot of people. we do not need any automatic weapons like that. i believe in the second amendment. i have a rifle, four shotguns,

and two pistols and i am a hunter. i hunt animals. i do not hunt humans, and i do not own an ar-15. all these people who say they needed for their protection, i cannot remember a single story in the news were amen protected himself with his ar-15. host: how important are gun issues to your vote in the up coming midterm election? caller: i will vote against anybody that says they are not going to vote to get rid of the automatic weapons, the ar-15's, the killing machine of babies. host: on thursday, the house judiciary committee met to mark up legislation and a republican congressman talked about his reaction to the democrats' gun proposals. [video clip] >> their intentions are clear.

they want to take away law-abiding citizens' ability to purchase the firearm of their choice. do not let them fool you that they are not taking away the ability to purchase handguns. they are using the magazine band to do it. last year, the glock 19 was the highest sold handgun in the united states. it comes with a 15 round magazine. that gun would be banned. in front of me, this comes with a 22 round magazine. this would be banned. here's a 12 round magazine. it does not fit. this gun was made for a 21 round magazine. this gun would be banned under the spell. here is a six-hour -- sig sauer . a 12 round magazine will be banned and does not fit.

this gun would be banned under this bill. here is a gun i carry every day to protect myself, my family, my wife, my home. this comes with a 15 round magazine. here's a seven round magazine, which would be less then what will be lawful under this bill if it were to become law. >> that -- is not loaded. >> i am in my house. i can do whatever i want with my guns. host: let's see what our social media followers are saying. here's one tweet that says voting rights, reproductive rights, gun issues, not necessarily in that order but top on the list. another tweet says, unfortunately guns are necessary in this world. a tweet that says, i do not agree with making our schools

into prisons with armed guards and barbed wire fences. another tweet says, guns are meaningless in terms of my midterm vote. legislation cannot prevent unstable people doing horrid things. one final tweet says, like drunk driving, zero probable cause roadside sobriety stops are the pattern we need to stop guns in america. we need cops to search cars and people to find guns for a safe country. we want to remind you that we are talking about how important gun issues are to your 2022 vote. you can always text us. our lines are open. republicans, host:. -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. i want to remind you that there

will be action in congress on several issues this week, starting on tuesday. a hearing will investigate domesticate crimes and violent extremist threats. a former u.s. attorney and former fbi special agent will testify in front of the senate judiciary committee. you can watch live coverage of that tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three, on our free mob free mobile app, and online anytime.

let's go back to our phone lines and start with francine from california on the republican line. good morning. caller: are you there? host: yes, go ahead. caller: when it comes to my vote regarding gun violence, it does not really matter. in california, we have the strongest gun laws of really any state and we still have people dying left and right on our streets. what we need is da's to prosecute people and take away guns. a lot of these guns are illegal that are killing these people. i get the ak thing. maybe they should be banned to a certain extent. my kids go to a school. you literally have to be bussed in and out. our schools are safe. why can't they do that with

other schools? i do not think they should be going to the extreme they are going. as far as i'm concerned, biden is a liar because everything that comes out of his mouth -- he has been in the senate how long and has not been able to pass real gun laws? all you're doing is hurting the legal people that have guns and causing these people -- i just do not get it. host: mary is calling from new york on the democrat line. good morning. are you there? let's go to rich, who is calling in from greensburg, pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning.

go ahead. caller: it is not laws -- i'm a gun owner. it is not laws that keep me from going out and shooting people. it is my own humanity. i am not predisposed to violence. i suspect it is the truth for 99.99 percent of gun owners. we just had a shooting on the others of the state in philadelphia. three people were killed, 11 wounded. i believe this was two handguns were found, so it was not an ar style weapon. that is point number one. point number two, one of the laws they are proposing is banning online gun sales. i bought a gun online, but it is not like you buy a gun on ebay

and they ship it to your door. they ship it to a federal firearms dealer and when it arrives you have to go at that point to submit -- at least this is the way it works for pennsylvania -- submit to a background check. that is how it works here. host: is there any gun legislation you think is needed now? caller: i do not think raising the age to 21 is a bad thing. i have looked at some data. 2019 or 2020, there were 20,000 gun homicides. 8200 or by handgun. 450 were by rifle, which is where you would catch the ar carnage. it is a red herring. if you want to stop gun

violence, you have to get rid of handguns. as francine from california said, da's need to prosecute. when someone in pennsylvania says this guy is going to do 10 to 20, they always get out and 10. if you could call they handgun you should not have, it should be 30 years period. host: how important is this to your 2022 vote or is this something that you will vote on? >> i think i am dyed in the wool being a pro 2a guy. my choice for senate is going to be john fetterman, who is against guns commands dr. oz. i am not sure he is the right guy either. it is one component. there is a load of stuff that goes into my vote. host: let's go to leonard from south carolina on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning.

host: go ahead. caller: i think republicans are using that to block all the other laws on the books without removing the second amendment, the laws on the books ain't gonna work. i do not think people should have ar-15 style weapons. people do need weapons to protect themselves. build on without the second amendment. host: is this issue something your 2022 vote will revolve around? caller: yes. host: ok.

let's go to bill, calling from burlington, michigan on the independent line. argue there? -- argue there? -- are you there? jerry is calling from michigan on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think -- i am here. can you hear me? ok. good morning to you. i appreciate you guys having this conversation. i think a lot of people misunderstand what the second amendment is about. hello? host: what is the second amendment about? caller: hello? hello? host: we can hear you. go ahead. caller: hello? sorry, must be a problem with my phone. can you hear me?

host: we can. go ahead. caller: ok. the second amendment was designed among other things to protect us against an overambitious government, which we have currently. i grew up in the 1940's and 1950's. in the 1950's and 1960's, where i was in kindergarten, grade school, middle school and high school, the schools i went to -- we were a poor family -- were 50-50 black-and-white or hispanic. we had fewer problems then than we are having now. people are trying to drive wedges between our races. we need to be able to protect ourselves from that.

the second amendment is designed to protect us from the government, not to go deer hunting. deer hunting is nice. that is part of owning a gun. i do not deer hunt. i own a gun to protect my family from these crazy people that are running around. no doubt they need mental help, but the main reason i have it is i do not trust our government anymore. i do not trust republicans and i do not trust democrats. they are both together like a couple thieves in the night. thank you for your time. host: mike is calling from wisconsin on the independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i agree with what jerry just said. the gun issue is important to me. as you listen to the calls, it has gone through you need a gun

to protect yourself back in the 90's 60's and 70's, you need the gun to protect yourself at home, to have any kind of gun. now we are to the point -- listen to the people. they want to have a gun to take over our government. they are being told that having the greatest health care system in the world, they need to have a gun to take care of it. having no health care system in the world would just let those people die without health care. that is good. having the greatest education system in the world is bad because we do not pray to the republican god. so we do not have a good education system here and let's break it down. the bottom line is nothing is going to change until we convince people if you think you need a gun to go to the grocery store you are the type of person who should not have a gun.

we need better gun control, not laws. keep as many guns as he wont, but they are going to be registered. you are going to have insurance on it. you're gun gets caught doing a crime, you are going to jail for five years. host: let's talk to curtis on the democrat line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think the problem is systemic. i lost my father in 2010 to the gun violence. i will shut myself in los angeles, california. the laws need to be reformed. the guy that shot me -- was sent to seven years. it is cultural as well i believe in our society.

we need reform in different areas. i remember in california the police were outgunned by criminals. they had to go to pawn shop to get guns to try to protect themselves from bank robbers and automatic weapons. i do not think that automatic weapons are necessary in the general public. i understand the second amendment. i understand the protection from a tyrannical government. that means we need to get and reform our political system. we should have representatives that give us the security that we do not have to worry about -- to the extent where we have to own automatic weapons. it is wanting to protect your

family -- one thing to protect your family and that is understandable. our cities have become urban jungles. it is a slippery slope. i understand the judicial system, looks case-by-case. it is a difficult situation. i pray we as a nation will find the courage so sincerely address this issue as it seems to be spinning this nation. host: let's go to terrence from arkansas on the independent line. >> -- caller: good morning. i wanted to say that i personally believe politicians

-- the situation in uvalde. i do not believe and many people i know do not believe it is a gun issue. the 18-year-old was able to purchase that gun. the guy that did the shooting in buffalo, the reality is the guy in buffalo, that was a hate crime. that was a white supremacy issue. he just utilized the ability to purchase a firearm to act out what he believed. same with salvador. good reflection of a breakdown in american culture. in jonesboro, the zip code is the arkansas state university. the west shine -- side shooting is about three miles from where i am. those kids were 11 and 13.

those kids did not use an ar-15. used revolvers and rifles. that is a reflection of american culture. we have a hyper-aggressive culture in this country. it does not matter whether the ar-15's legal or not. i do not believe an 18-year-old should be allowed to purchase an ar-15, but to say the issue is guns, the issue is our culture. there is something wrong with american culture. we are aggressive. you are dealing with a generation of kids who have spent since they were born they know nothing but war. host: the house judiciary committee met and talked about gun laws. here is republican congressman

matt gaetz his advice to senators who may be open to expanding so-called red flag laws. [video clip] >> let the message from this committee hearing to republican senators be astonishingly clear. if you back red flag laws as some reflexive response to some emotion you have, you betray your voters. you are a traitor to the constitution, the second amendment, the fifth amendment. you do nothing to make mass shootings less likely. you put a target on the back of your constituents. to be subject to bizarre proceedings that you would not see in any other circumstance that has a profound impact on your rights and these will be abused. they are being abused. some would probably red flag

some of your colleagues in the senate. how long until conversations about keeping senator hawley off of aircraft turn into situations about keeping his guns away, this is not just about guns. it is about power. what the democrats want is to ensure the government has the power to take your guns away without giving you. . due process shame on any republican in the senate who would pave the way to that type of deprivation of liberty and of our constitutional rights. host: that statement from matt gaetz garnered a response from a democratic congressman. here's what he >> had to say. this is a radical position being authored by our friends on the others the aisle. they claim we should support ensuring people who are in imminent danger to themselves and others, that might commit

mass murder, have a constitutional right to access a firearm and to deny them that right would trample on an individual's due process and second amendment rights. you know who did not have due process? you know who did not have their constitutional life to write respected? the kids at parkland and sandy hook and the list goes on. spare me the bullshit about constitutional rights. i will not yield, to do not ask again. these risk protections ensure that people who are a grave danger to themselves or others do not have access to a firearm. this is an idea that the former republican president said, we must make sure that those judged to pose a great risk to public safety do not have access to firearms.

if they do so, this firearms can be taken through due process. that is why i have called for red flag laws. the former republican president. the bill introduced by senator lindsey graham. so the view of our republican colleagues that no matter how dangerous you are, no matter how much you exhibit an intention to kill others or yourself, you should have on -- unfettered access to a firearm because the second amendment guarantees it, that is nonsense. host: before we get back to our calls, i want to remind you after months of investigation the how strenuous six committee is set to go public -- house january 6 committee is starting to go public thursday with key witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on the u.s. capitol. our live coverage begins thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. you can also watch all the

proceedings on our free mobile app and watch it online at c-span.org. let's get back to our phone calls and start with natalie, calling from pennsylvania on the republican line. stanley, good morning. go ahead. caller: people do not care about january 6. please don't hang up on me. powers all democrats want. six dollars for a gallon of fuel right now. i cannot buy groceries and i make a nice living. people do not care about january 6. democrats are trying to keep trump from running for another presidency.

as far as red flag laws, are they going to raid my neighbor's house and take his guns? the second amendment is to protect us from the tyrannical government. who needs a kevlar vest? -- are you there? host: go ahead, stanley. i guess stanley hung up. let's go to florida on the democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. to begin with, i believe the second amendment. i have owned guns my entire life and was taught from a kid how to handle a gun. my thing is raising the age to

21 is not enough. i do not believe in weapons of mass destruction being in the hands of john q public. i do not think there should be ar-15's were anything anywhere except on the front line where people are trying to protect their country. our ar-15's are no match for anything the government has. if the government decides to take over the public and put that type of restrictions on what the public is able to do, we cannot fight back. that is just blowing wind if you think you can fight back to them. what the kids who just got killed in texas -- i heard somebody said you need ar-15's

to fight off a hog attack, so i went online and google's it. i found out there is an average of seven people a year that die from being attacked by a hog and probably they are poking the pig when that happens. i am not against anybody owning guns for hunting. i am not against people owning guns for sport shooting and that sort of thing, but there is no police in this country that people need that type of weapon. host: let's talk to syracuse, new york on the republican line. caller: good morning. i appreciate that gentleman who was just on because it sets up this, for me. that is let's get it straight. the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport

shooting. the second amendment is for the people to protect themselves against i -- a tyrannical government. if you think the government will overwhelm anything the population has, we will fight and die, exactly what we have done in the past. we will not be subjugated by a tyrannical government. there are many of us, many millions, and we are not going to let anything come between us and the second amendment. we will do away with the government itself on our own in washington if they try to take away our second amendment. host: elizabeth is calling from tampa, florida on the democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i love c-span. it is the only news program i watch. i watched the entire judiciary committee since it aired. i think it is interesting because there was a senator after that from delaware that was a democrat who really put it out on the line. he said, this is not about the second amendment. the second amendment gives you a right to bear arms. the second clause is states can limit these guns within reason. there is the caveat, where they can say each state can decide. should i have weapons of mass destruction or not? they are not taking guns away. three of five of the top mass shootings were in texas. texas revisits this issue. the senator from delaware, the

democrats, he keyed in on the fact that stop hiding behind the smokescreen of the second amendment. it does not violate our rights. to bear arms. matt grades -- matt gaetz and all the public -- republicans need to stop guess letting the public. -- gas lighting the public. why are women in the military such a big issue? what is the difference between them, a single mom, somebody married to the fbi? i am disappointed in republicans. i wish the facts would be put out there instead of the rhetoric. host: let's go to jimmy from maine. good morning. caller: thank you. you do not get to pick your

parents in our world. we have lost our souls as a country. we have no conscience whatsoever. we have the attention span of a goldfish. we are like a hamster on a wheel. the fellow that ran over people with a car and killed six or seven in wisconsin, he was a black man. this last shooting of these kids in texas was a hispanic. one in california was an asian. mental illness does not pick republican or democrat. i am listening to our senators and congressmen. the protecting the kids act. we have 300 kids a day that are going to die today on fentanyl. they do not do anything about that. you can have all the laws you want. you do not get to pick and choose which law you get. we have laws on the books now that no one even covers.

we have people that go in and shoot somebody and before the ink has dry they are out. the cops get blamed for not going in. they get blamed for reacting too quick. we are in a state in this country that needs so much help. we need someone to come along. if it is jesus, it is jesus. we are in jesus, it is jesus but we are in big trouble. host: we would like to thank all of our callers and social media followers for that first segment. coming up next, russia expert william pomeranz from the wilson center will join us to talk about the latest developments in russia's invasion of ukraine. and later, scott wilkens, senior staff attorney with the knight first amendment institute will here to discuss the supreme court blocking of the texas social media law and what it means for the future of free speech in the digital age. we will be right back. >> tonight on q&a, iraq war

veteran -- author of uncertain ground, discusses the impact of the wars in afghanistan and iraq on american society. >> one of the things that marines used to say was we are at war and america -- thinking about that a couple years later, i thought, america is at war. i'm at the mall. this is where i'm supposed to be, getting 80 clothes. -- getting baby clothes. the contempt i saw for a degree of civilian life is crazy because the whole point of joining the matilda -- joining the military is this idea of civilian life is worth defending. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a.

you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on the new free c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with wilson center russia expert william pomeranz, who is here to discuss the latest developments in russia's invasion of ukraine. good morning. guest: good morning. host: so we are in the 102nd day of the ukraine-russia conflict. where are we? what is going on? guest: we are in a bloody battle for various parts of ukraine, but what is important to emphasize is that the initial expectation of vladimir putin and russia has not been met. according to reports, he thought

this would be an easy invasion, that they would be in kyiv within days after the initial attack. that has not been the case. russia has been confronted by a heroic defense from ukraine and russia is now not fighting for kyiv but is now trying to solidify its position in the donbass. host: it sounds like you don't think russia is winning. is ukraine winning? guest: ukraine is winning in the sense that it has not been defeated, that it has defended its territory and it has continued to impose significant casualties on the invading russian troops. they have also suffered a loss of territory. it is hard to say if ukraine is winning, but they have put up a

heroic and courageous defense and russia is still trying to figure out how it can achieve a significant victory in ukraine. host: have military or diplomatic efforts been adequate from the united states and nato for ukraine? guest: nato and the united states have stepped up in terms of supplying ukraine with equipment, advanced equipment that will be needed to defend ukraine in the near future. obviously we have not sent troops into ukraine, but we have imposed significant sanctions that are beginning to bite and will have more impact the longer this conflict continues. host: as you just pointed out, the united states has not sent any troops to ukraine to help defend their land. is that a possibility anytime in

the future or is that completely off the board? guest: at the present time, it is off the board. ukraine has asked for significant military assistance will stump the united states has provided that. the eu has stepped -- assistance. the united states has provided that. the eu has stepped up. eu troops will be in ukraine -- i think ukraine is left to defend its sovereignty and territory on its own. host: the ukrainian president said last week that russia and separatists control about 20% of ukrainian territory. guest: russia controls -- zelenskyy assessed it as

correct. russia controls 20% of ukrainian territory. the control is concentrated in the donbass and also in part of the south of ukraine. russia has achieved certain technical advantages during this invasion. most importantly it has created what it is called the land bridge to crimea, so that crimea is not isolated from the russian federation, but actually is more attached to russia. russia has achieved certain advances, but at a significant cost. host: talk about the relationship between ukraine, the separatists and russia. who are the separatists and what is their relationship with russia? guest: the separatists, and it is really not an aggregate term.

they were created in the aftermath of the annexation of crimea in 2013 and 2014, and they are really an artificial creation of russia. it was initially created, these territories as a way to continue to undermine ukraine's economic and territorial integrity. it was originally set up as a frozen -- to ensure that ukraine had to deal with these separatists even though there was no evidence of their popularity or even ability to survive at that distance from the russian federation. host: given everything you have said so far this morning about russia and the failure of them achieving their goals so far,

what are russia's strategic and military goals at this point? guest: they keep changing. at this point, the primary military goal is to establish control over the donbass. that includes a couple districts. i think the ultimate goal is to recognize those territories as independent countries. they have already done that to a certain degree, and basically annex those territories to the russian federation. i think right now this is a conflict whose aim is territory advancement for the russian federation. host: let me take two seconds to remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation.

we will open up regular lines and that means republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, your line is (202)-748-8000. independents, you can call (202)-748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202)-748-8003. we are always reading on social media, on twitter and on facebook. william, i'm going to go to a question from one of our social media followers, who brings up something i had not considered yet. the question is, where is the united nations on what is happening in ukraine? guest: the united nations has condemned russia's aggression.

it has expelled russia from its human rights council. it has potential implications for this invasion going forward, especially if there are international criminal charges brought against the russian federation. the united nations has been active in condemning this activity, but it has not attempted to put some sort of peacekeeping mission or boots on the ground. host: i mauled enough tour number the blue helmets and peacekeepers from the united nations in other conflicts. do we see any possibility of that happening or is it off the table considering russia sits on the security council? guest: russia's position as a member of the security council would significantly hinder a u.n. peacekeeping force, unless russia agreed to it. i think in order for any sort of

peacekeeping mission to take place, there must be some sort of cease-fire or agreement in place, and i don't think that is possible in the near future. host: the nato chief warrant thursday -- warned thursday that russian nations needed to prepare for a long war of attrition in ukraine. that happened during white house talks with president biden. do you agree with his statement that this is going to be a long war of attrition ? guest: there is every possibility that this war will continue. how long it continues is obviously dependent on various factors. i think we are not going to have an immediate resolution to this crisis in the near future, and if it is a war of attrition, then both ukraine and russia are

in for several challenges, especially in terms of both of these countries being able to maintain sufficient military force to essentially have a stalemate. host: we've heard a lot about vladimir putin and the war, but we haven't heard much about what the average russian citizen or what the russian military thinks of this conflict with ukraine. do we know anything about what the russian people and the russian military -- how they are in the conflict with ukraine right now? -- how they are viewing the comfort with ukraine right now? guest: there are indications that within the russian military, there is some discontent in terms of how the invasion has proceeded. gauging russian public opinion is very difficult. russians are not very ready to voice their independent opinions

on this invasion. more importantly, vladimir putin has succeeded in essentially destroying all bases of independent media and independent civil society. russians can't really go out into the streets yet. they can't really object in the media because they are subject to significant criminal penalties. it is very hard to assess the russian public opinion on this invasion, except that putin has succeeded in making sure opposing views are not readily available. host: we have a multipart question from one of our social media followers. here is the question. what will victory, what will victory be for ukraine, the u.s. and nato in repelling the

invasion? does this also include driving russia out of crimea? what will happen to russian ukrainians who betrayed their own country and allies to help cut -- to help russia invade? what does victory look like for ukraine? guest: victory means the end of the invasion and russia's return to its borders. from the ukrainian standpoint, it also involves the return of crimea, although that will involve a much more difficult military operation. russia and its constitutional reforms in 2020 basically said that russia cannot give away or alienate any territory of the russian federation. that being said, from the ukraine standpoint, victory would mean that russia returns to its borders and ukrainian sovereignty over all of ukraine

is restored. host: this brings me to what president biden said on friday as he was asked by a reporter if ukraine needs to cede territory to achieve peace. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> from the beginning, and not everyone has agreed with me, it is their territory. i'm not going to tell them what they should or shouldn't do. it appears to me that at some point along the line, there may need to be some form of settlement. what that means, i don't know. in the meantime, we will continue to put the ukrainians in the position where they can defend themselves. host: first i would like you to react to what president biden said. guest: i believe the ultimate settlement of this dispute is up

to the ukrainians and we should back them in their defense of their sovereignty and territory. there has been various solutions put out by various prominent statesmen, talking about seating territory to obtain -- ceding territory to obtain peace. ukraine is not willing to do that and in light of the losses that have occurred and the atrocities that have occurred, we are in no position to dictate at the present time, whether ukraine must cede territory in terms of a potential piece and there is also the question that even if ukraine theoretically did, would that be enough for russia or what they just interpret that as a sign of weakness and continue their attack and assault upon ukraine? host: let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. we will start with jim, calling

from north carolina on the republican line. caller: good morning, thank you. i first want to comment that when this war started, i was very surprised that the ukrainians had the power and the military capability that they are showing. i don't think putin is a mad man, i think there is a strategy to this. could there be a reason that we are not being told, that this force of ukraine is a threat? why don't we believe the russians that they feel there could be some type of threat to them? this military force on their border? would we allow it? guest: ukraine has only engaged its military force to defend its borders and defend its sovereignty, which is entirely entitled to. vladimir putin has put up

various excuses as to why russia needed to invade ukraine, including the argument that somehow ukraine represented a threat to the russian federation. ukraine has never threatened the integrity of the russian federation. it is only russia that has annexed territory of ukraine to the russian federation and it is only russia that has been the aggressor in this war. host: william, what would you say to americans who want to know why the united states should care about russia taking land in ukraine? why is this our concern and why should we be spending american taxpayer dollars to help ukraine? guest: the security of europe and the eu and the united states

have acted in cooperation, and defending the sovereignty and territory of ukraine. if indeed ukraine was to be defeated, then the entire post-cold war -- post-world war ii international borders would be challenged. there is a significant reason why we need to fight and help ukraine. ukraine is a democracy, ukraine has a vibrant civil society and if we want to have a stable global order, we need to have -- we need to defend ukraine and not be subject to the whims of the russian federation and their attacks on various sorts of independent states. host: i want to read an op-ed that president biden had in the new york times on may 31 and i

want to read you a paragraph on what he said. we did not seek a war between nato and russia. as much as i disagree with mr. putin and find his actions and outrage, the united states will not try to bring about his ousting in russia. as long as the united states and its allies not attacked, we will not directly engage in this conflict. we are not encouraging or enabling ukraine to strike outside of the borders. we do not want to prolong the war, just to inflict pain on russia. with biden saying that, does that encourage or deter anything that moscow plans to do? guest: i think president biden has insisted in that statement that we are not for regime change, and that it is up to the russian people to decide who their leaders are, and therefore

we are not seeking a regime change, we are not seeking political instability in russia, but we are defending the sovereignty and territory of an independent nation that is ukraine, and i think president biden again, he put this very well. we are not seeking regime change and we are not tacking -- we are not tacking russia and president putin. president putin has made significant accusations about the united states and its intentions and i think that statement is in sharp contrast to putin's attempt to say that the united states and nato are interested in regime change in the russian federation. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to linda calling from california on the independent line. caller: hi. i want to say number one,

because this is my major point, i am very concerned about the people the united states are supporting. those are the major fighting forces. they are neo-nazis in contact with neo-nazis all around the world, as all of them are. it is a very powerful force in ukraine and our own state department helped set it up when they helped coordinate the overthrow of the elected president in ukraine in 2014. as far as biden stating very well we are not interested in fighting russia, of course we are not interested in fighting russia. they are way too powerful.

we want other people like the ukrainians to fight russia, and there are people, mainly the oligarchs in ukraine who will do anything to have business dealings with the eu, and that is why the united states do want to use ukraine, five minutes away from a missile strike on moscow. they want ukraine to be part of nato so we can set up our quote unquote defense systems and with a change of a ship, offensive weapons. host: go ahead and respond. guest: there is a lot there. i think the caller has kind of repeated putin's accusations that russia is filled with nazis and that is why russia needed to

defend and invade ukraine. that is not the case. host: did you mean to say ukraine? guest: yes. putin's charge and accusation and justification for this war is de-nazification of ukraine and that is just a ruse and they live. ukraine does have a certain right wing political movement, that is the case but to say that ukraine is a neo-nazi country and that ukraine is run by that brigade is simply not true. ukraine is a democracy that has held several elections and has a vibrant civil society, and so ukraine has been able to show that it is a aspiring democracy

and has paid for it with several major revolts against leaders, including mr. janne covid, who ultimately fled ukraine after he engaged in a shooting against protesters. i think the revolution of dignity produced significant democratic breakthroughs in ukraine and that it is unfair and indeed a lie to say that ukraine is simply governed by neo-nazis. host: let's talk to anthony calling from new york on the democrat line. anthony good morning. caller: thank you for the opportunity. i feel that this war in ukraine is nothing more than a military-industrial complex converging.

pope francis said that nato started this war in ukraine by parking at putin's door and if russia were in cuba or mexico right now, arming mexicans, i think that the united states would be feeling the same way and doing the same thing that putin is doing. i see ukraine and russia as a divorce taking place and the united states by putting hands in the hands of ukrainians is making matters worse. ukraine is a nuclear wasteland because of the chernobyl meltdown and it needs all the scientists from russia to help mitigate that dilemma and what we are doing -- ukraine is a

corrupt country. i don't think that we should be taking sides. we need to broker peace in the region. we don't need to be -- if a husband and wife were fighting with each other, you don't start giving weapons to either one of them to try and help them kill each other. you try and separate them and stop the insanity. host: go ahead and respond. guest: ukraine is not a member of nato. it doesn't enjoy any of the privileges of nato, including the security guarantees in the nato charter, and nato on several occasions has deferred the admission of ukraine to nato. ukraine is not a neato nation. it potentially wants to be included into nato, but nato has not incorporated ukraine into the alliance and i would say

that there is no expectation in the near future of nato incorporating ukraine, despite ukraine's best efforts. i think finland and sweden have a better chance of joining nato in the near future. host: speaking of nato, finland and sweden have requested to join nato. what is the significance of those requests and talk a little bit about turkey's opposition to that move and what does that mean for ukraine? guest: i think the request from finland and sweden to join nato after decades of neutrality shows how this invasion has backfired on putin. putin has railed against nato and nato expansion, but as a

result of this invasion and the atrocities that have occurred as a result, nato is contemplating an expansion right up to russia's border. i think that the applications of sweden and finland show the unintended consequences of putin 's invasion. we will see what sort of negotiations take place within nato and whether a compromise can be found. i think some sort of compromise will be found and again, this is just another example of how the invasion of ukraine has backfired on russia and vladimir putin.

host: one of our social media followers has another question. do we have any idea how much the attack on the ukraine is costing the russian economy? do we know how much the russian people support this attack? we don't really know about the russian people and how they feel, but do we know how much this is affecting the russian economy? guest: the united states and eu and other allies have imposed significant sanctions. there are certain guardrails that have been passed in rapid time, so the idea that somehow russia would integrate, somehow into the global economy. but in the aftermath, there is a

significant decrease in the amount of technology going into russia and its ability to manufacture certain products such as automobiles and missiles that have been inhibited. the effect of sanctions has yet to be felt i the russian federation and obviously that there are signs that it is having an impact like high unemployment, etc.. the sanctions appeared to be working, maybe not as fast as some people would have liked or expected, but these sanctions in the medium-term will impose significant economic

consequences on the russian economy and they have not yet been felt. host: another question from a social media follower and i will follow up. this followers says ukraine may be vital to the security of europe and may be in our interest to help, but the bulk of the effort should be the responsibility of europe, why are we the primary sponsor of ukraine? my question to you is has anything surprised you about european support of ukraine? guest: the europeans have acted with surprising unity and cohesion in response to this invasion by the russian federation. they have also impose significant sanctions -- imposed significant sanctions leading up to the decision a couple days ago not to import russian oil into the european union. one has to realize that the

europeans have far greater trade with the russian federation then the -- than the united states. these sanctions have greater impact on the eu than the united states. the eu has acted with surprising unity and force. the couple days ago, they excluded several major russian banks from the swiss messaging system, which will leave russia isolated in terms of global finance. the eu has responded. it continues to impose significant sanctions and i should say that as a result of this invasion, germany has been much more active in sending weapons and rallying to the defense of ukraine.

one of the unintended consequences of this crisis in something that vladimir putin did not expect. host: let's go back to our phone lines. thomas is calling from florida on the republican line. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. always love the program. you guys are the best. i just want to start off -- i do have a question but i want to start off by saying as a publican, and i am on the moderate side, but i am a republican nonetheless and i am 100% pro ukraine and every single republican that i know personally supports ukraine and is against putin. i'm seeing a lot of liberals on social media make the accusation that republicans are standing with russia or that would support russia or they claimed that if trump was in office, he would be supporting putin. that is absolute nonsense and i don't think it is true and it is

interesting to note, russia didn't invade while trump was in office. to move past trump, here is a statement and a question. what will it take for us to restore normal economic relations with russia because in my opinion, putin has gone too far and he has to go. i don't think we can ever have any semblance of normal diplomatic relations with russia so long as putin or anybody connected to putin or anybody who is a puppet of putin remains in office. putin needs to be gone, either arrested or handed over to the ukrainians or exiled, whatever it is, but the putin regime has to go forever, before russia could even think about rejoining the world stage. my question would be, what do you think the long-term solution

is to normality and what do you think the chances are of putin being ousted for good? guest: i think that the long-term economic consequences are that russia will be isolated from the international economy. it will try and restore some semblance of international trade, relying on china, india and other established nations but the united states has already said that it is going to revoke most favored nation status which was granted to the russian federation when it joined the wto. russia has threatened to nationalize industries which would again alienate any attempts to reincorporate russia into the global economy. russia has decided to introduce certain imports, lift import

limitations to allow parallel imports of western goods into the russian federation. all that is to say that russia has taken significant steps as a result of this invasion to isolate itself from the global economy, and i think that russia will spend several years if not decades in the wilderness and it will only be when russia and ukraine -- when russia basically pays reparations to ukraine, and ukraine is rebuilt, that some sense, some return to the russian economy will be contemplated but that will be a long time coming and rightfully so. host: the u.s. announced last week that they will supply high mobility artillery rockets to ukraine that will enable them to precisely strike key targets on

the battlefield and reuters is reporting that the biden administration plans to sell ukraine great eagle drones that could be armed with hellfire missiles for battlefield use against russia. i'm going to pivot to what the new york times is saying is going on in russia -- in ukraine this morning. the russian airstrikes hit ukraine's capital early sunday, injuring at least one person and piercing the sense of relative security that had settled over the city as they slowed russia's grinding onslaught to the east. at least five missiles hit the capital near a railway station. the first shelling reported in more than a month. armored vehicles were destroyed. president vladimir putin warned that moscow would hit targets it had so far avoided in western

nations delivering longer-range missiles to ukraine. now that we know president putin says he is going to target areas they previously avoided. guest: i do approve the sending of this advanced artillery forces. president putin throughout this war and the russian federation has been indiscriminate in their attacks on ukraine. it has lobbed missiles at various cities and it has destroyed cities to rubble. i think vladimir putin will decide what his military strategy is and will not be deterred by the civilian

casualties. he says he is targeting military facilities but that has not been the case throughout this war and i'm sure that it will not be the case going forward. i think it is to undermine -- these attacks will be to undermine the morale of ukraine and kyiv. they are not against military targets and i think as a result, ukraine again has a right to defend itself. host: joseph is calling from california on the democrat line. good morning. caller: there is a lot of misinformation you have done here. i've been following ukraine since 2011. we wanted to stay out of ukraine. it was something the obama administration wanted to do, and they wanted to make sure that ukraine was going to be a

neutral country. treaties were signed between nato and russia. i'm trying to think right now, how many treaties the united states has broken throughout its history, and it has this consequence of destroying other countries and nations when it does so. there are a lot of people in the united states who are tired of it. when biden was voted in, it was on the promise that we were done with war and we were going to fix our nation. what type of consequences should come from companies or organizations that violated this promise to the american people? jail time, bankruptcy ? this is a direct violation of the promise this president made to the people of this nation. right now we've got blackrock

and warren buffett selling oil companies -- telling oil companies and the supply chains of this country how much oil will go to the gas stations, and this is fact. while you are blustering about everything wrong with putin, you are covering up the crisis that is about to unleash itself upon our nation. host: go ahead and respond. guest: the caller talked about the potential violations of resident biden and his promises. i think president biden, when he came into office did not want to be dragged into a conflict in ukraine. he said that he would consider nato it -- he would not consider ukrainian admission to nato

until the debt with the problem of corruption, essentially saying it was going to be on the back burner for a long time that in light of this invasion and in light of the atrocities, the war has come to ukraine and the united states needs to support ukraine and its independence. in terms of violating treaties, russia has been in the forefront of violating treaties dealing with ukraine. indeed after the end of the cold war, russia said it would recognize the borders of ukraine and something called the budapest norm -- budapest memorandum. that was basically the agreement that allowed ukraine to send -- to de-nuclearize and send their nuclear weapons back to russia. obviously russia has not recognized the territory of

ukraine. russia is the one that has violated these agreements and russia is the one that has committed these atrocities in ukraine. host: we would like to thank wilson center russia expert, william pomeranz for being with us this morning and talking us through the conflict between russia and ukraine. thank you so much for your time. coming up next. guest: my pleasure. host: scott wilkens, senior staff attorney with the knight first amendment institute. he will discuss the supreme court blocking of texas's social media moderation law and what it means for the future of free speech in the digital age. but first we will go to our open forum segment where you can call in and talk about your most important political topic of the day, using the lines as you can see on screen. we are waiting for your call. we will be right back. ♪

>> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the white house and other officials, the pentagon and the state department as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span networks, the c-span now mobile app and c-span.org/ukraine, our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> after months of closed-door investigations, the house january 6 committee is set to go public. tune in as committee members western key witnesses about what

transpired and why, during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch live coverage beginning thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. life today on in-depth, a journalist will talk about immigration issues and the drug epidemic in the united states. they are the author of several books, including true tales from another mexico, dreamland and the least of us, true tales of america and hope in the time of fentanyl and math, about the neuroscience and -- about the neuroscience of addiction. join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets. before the program, visit

c-spanshop.org to get your copies of his books. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps the day for you, from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code at the bottom to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back for our open forum segment where you can call in and talk about your most important political topics of the day. we will open up regular lines. republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202)-748-8003.

and we are always on social media, on twitter, and facebook. before we get into the calls, i want to remind you that after months of closed-door investigations, the house january 6 committee is set to go public. starting thursday, committee members question key witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on the u.s. capitol. our live coverage begins thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, on our free mobile video app c-span now and you can always watch it online at c-span.org. this all comes as a gunman was suspected of fatally shooting a retired judge in wisconsin. i want to bring you that story from the washington post this morning. a gunman suspected of fatally

shooting a retired county judge at a wisconsin home had a list that included michigan ever in her gretchen whitmer, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, and wisconsin governor tony evers. witmer's office and a law enforcement official said saturday, the 56-year-old who has not been charged is suspected of killing a retired judge, at their house in new elizabeth on friday. they were found in the basement of the home with a self-inflicted gunshot wound. following attempt by police to negotiate with him. he was hospitalized in cripple condition. wisconsin's attorney general said friday that the shooting appeared to be a targeted act,

and that the gunman had select people -- selected people part -- who were part of the judicial system. they apparently had a list that included the michigan governor, the wisconsin governor and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. this according to a law enforcement source telling the washington post. what is your top political issue of the day? we will start with tyrone calling from illinois on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the two biggest topics right now is the inflation and the other one would be the gas prices. the biggest cause of inflation ic see is still in our ports. -- i see is still in our ports.

they hit a high of almost 30,000, they have settled back down to around 21,000 but now they are going back up, due to the fact of not being able to get the goods in, and the price is increasing in china. most of the ports in china are shut down due to the covid issue they are having. i think it is time that america starts to look at making more stuff domestically, to help the american people, and we need to look at producing more oil in the united states, to take care of its. they had a thing recently on c-span about canada and their oil. i'm concerned as to why we are not trying to get more oil from canada which is a lot better

refined from -- better refined than from other countries we can get it from. host: cliff is calling from oklahoma on the independent line. caller: mine is more about the roe v. wade issue. i live in a red state. i've been listening to the christian republicans talking about giving people's -- taking people's rights away with abortion and everything else. i've seen the difference between the liberals and the republicans is republicans don't believe in abortion because they want your kids to grow up where they can send them off to war and make a profit. also the price of oil will eventually drop. i remember when it was almost trading negative. the whole thing with ukraine, we are playing right into putin's hand and making his economic position stronger. host: let's go to mary calling

from pennsylvania on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i would like to let people know that we are limiting our government i placing everything in the hands of independent contractors. everything, the wars like we have in ukraine, they already opened up the embassy at some of the other countries. you can only use independent contractors to go over there to protect these people. just like salt -- just like all social services in the united states, with our war on drugs, war on poverty. a lot of these people are not qualified to do these jobs. when the federal government notifies us in the 80's that they were unable to do background checks and they placed in the hands of the state

and the cities to do the background checks, this is the problem. they need to hire more atf agents, state and federal, investigators, to stop these crimes because when we place it in the hands of individuals with their nonprofits that want to mentor people, that is not going to solve the problem in this country. host: let's go to mark who was calling from kentucky on the independent line -- who is calling from kentucky on the independent line. caller: i just wanted to mention, the whole thing with russia over the past few months, they start of ukraine, putin said if anybody interfered, that they word have consequences greater than any faced in history. three days after that, he put

his nuclear arms on high alert. on april 25, has foreign secretary said the danger of nuclear war is serious and real. on may 12, president medvedev said the conflict always has a risk turning into a full-fledged nuclear war and would be disastrous for everyone. nato countries pumping weapons into ukraine and training troops to use western equipped -- western equipment, using mercenaries and exercises of alliance countries increasing the likelihood of a direct conflict between nato and russia. the press secretary warned that the nuclear arsenal could be deployed if there was an existential threat. putin was seen with the nuclear briefcase.

i just wonder what biden and general milley and lloyd austin are thinking. i don't know what they are not understanding. host: let's go to maria calling from georgia on the democrat line. caller: good morning. my comments have to do with the roe v. wade. i'm thinking that whole thing of taking away people's individual rights is a slippery slope. the main reason is because any law can be passed. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: for example, what if they have a bill considered in congress where men can only have sex once a month and the law

passed? men would be up in arms. yeah, but the law was passed. there would be a real problem. they could take away any personal individual rights they want to with the laws passed. once we start taking away women's rights to control their body, tell men they can control there's. it is a slippery slope. let's not start doing that. leave it in place. host: i want to remind you of a couple events coming up, live on tuesday, there will be a hearing that will investigate domesticate crimes and violent extremist threats. a former u.s. attorney and former fbi will testify live before the senate judiciary committee, and you can watch live on tuesday at 10:00 a.m.

eastern on c-span three, on our free mobile video app, c-span now or online at c-span.org. then on wednesday, witnesses impacted by gun violence including in recent mass shootings will testify at a house hearing, live at 10:00. you can watch it live on c-span3, on c-span now or any time online at c-span.org. we are in our open forum segment, where you can call in and talk about your most important political topic of the day. republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. you can always text (202)-748-8003. we are

before we get back into our colors, the wall street journal has a story about the u.s. economy i want to bring to you this morning before we get back into calls. this is the story from the wall street journal:

this is from the wall street journal, saying employers added 390,000 jobs in may. unemployment is steady at 3.6%. we want to know what your most important political topic is today. let's talk to connecticut on the independent line. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a public service announcement for but it, we are going to have a mass meditation today at 5:00. the subject is to clear the fog

from people's heads about what's going on in america. this is a connecting consciousness meditation. it's a group of people, 180 countries around the world with over 100 million people in it. with all of us working together, we can change what's going on in the world. it all comes down to vibration and frequency. if you think good thoughts, the world will change. host: shirley is calling from illinois. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question about the war in -- as the war about the bioweapon's? i keep hearing that's what putin is trying to do, get rid of the

bioweapon's? host: where are you hearing that? caller: different things i listen to. host: our russia expert was on the previous hour. i can't answer that question for you. the russia expert from the wilson center we had on earlier has not said anything about russia's trying to find bioweapon's. he said that was an excuse that putin tried to used to justify the invasion of ukraine. caller: i understand. is that their excuse? is that really what's going on. host: i believe he said it was an excuse. caller: they were saving the children, is what they were talking about. host: what he said earlier was that was propaganda from russia. caller: ok. host: let's go to louise calling

from massachusetts. good morning. caller: hello? hello? can you hear me? host: we can it, louise. caller: i have a question somebody might know something about this. i read it in the globe or the washington post or the new york times, which are all reptile new sources. i read that i am passionately in favor of unions, but i heard sadly that the unions were slowing down automation regarding unloading the tankers that come into our ports. i wonder if the unions would consider how important it is that our shipping is gummed up because of the war in every

thing else. -- and everything else. it would be good placidity it for them and it would be patriotic for them to allow the automation sooner. apparently they had a contract that did not allow automation to start until a certain date. it might be 2023. if they would change it and allow automation sooner as a patriotic gesture, that would be good publicity for them, and it would certainly help biden who is in favor of unions as i am. i think unions are good for everybody. host: let's talk to willie calling from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning.

can you hear me? ok. i've got a quick question. i wish i could say it's hypothetical, but it's not. suppose you are in the grocery store and you have a weapon. someone unpacks a violin case and pulls a machine gun out. they load a magazine. why are we advised to not engage him? do not engage that person, just run. let him do his business. host: i guess the first question is you have any training in

using a weapon? you could easily shoot someone who is not the perpetrator. caller: i don't want to carry a gun. if i see someone pull a machine gun out in the grocery store, why is it -- ym i obligated to run instead of engaging him? host: i don't know the you are obligated to run. i don't think a shoot out between an untrained person in a grocery store with anyone would be advisable. that's why we have security guards. caller: not enough at that grocery store in buffalo. host: ok. let's go to ed, calling from

california on the independent line. good morning. caller: the reason i'm calling today is for very quick points. they are around failer to use common sense. the recent school shootings, we know through factual evidence that many of the schools have failed to reach internal security standards, to harden the facility, to not be a soft target. we can talk about everything else down the road. we need to secure our schools. it's not that expensive to do. when it comes to sovereignty in america, there is an adverse policy by the administration to not protect our sovereignty.

i would like to reinstate all of those policies that trump got us on the right track on. talk about ukraine is important. the provision of the weapons that have been requested by ukraine are strictly defensive weapons. they can touch russian troops on their own soldier, to prevent them from attacking a sovereign country that is a democracy. finally, i haven't heard anybody call about d-day. that is across the mainstream media. i've been surfing the channel all day. i would like americans to think about that. host: let's talk to richard from

boston. good morning. caller: hello. i would like to say that gas is in the past. i think we need to -- the keystone pipeline for the oil is going to leak and cause problems and we are wrecking our land. as far as abortion goes, i have these two comments. abortion is a tough thing. people need to decide on their own. i don't think our children are cared for when they are born. they want to go to school or something. i don't think a poor person can

get good pediatric help. just to repeat that, we've got to be forward looking. gas is in the past. host: let's go to matt calling from new york. good morning. caller: i have one question, i have a couple of statements if you bear with me. my question is, the way i work i normally chant watch what you have on. do you have anything on about the meter it cover-up during the election of hunter biden's laptop, which we now know is real. my statements are very simple. both barack obama and joe biden said they wanted to fund --

fundamentally transform the nation. everything the joe biden is doing, high gas prices, the high food, the invasion at the border, we are talking 2 million people this year. all of this is not poor management. it is on purpose. anybody wants to know about it, all they've got to do is read about the leftists. the way you bring down the system is to overwhelm it. that is exactly what they are doing. host: if you're interested in what we've shown on hunter biden or any any other issue, you can search our website for any topic title you are interested in that we have covered here on washington journal. let's go to indiana on the independent line.

caller: good morning. good morning, united states i want to tell the democrats that build back better is the same as the great reset. world economic forum is all about it. president biden helped him. we are going to create a digital currency so they control everything we do, everything we buy, everything they decide. it is up to them. you are restricted now. the democrats are going to ruin america. host: how do switching to a digital currency mean they can restrict things you bite? we have bitcoin and other digital currencies already.

caller: it's going to hurt them right there. host: switching to a digital currency won't mean they can control what you buy? caller: they can control most of it. most people ain't doing that. they want what they want you to buy or they don't want you to buy. host: let's go to anthony who is calling from washington on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i was listening to the program while writing the car. i have three things to talk about. when they talk about obama, the currency, i don't believe that. i want to talk about the school shootings. anybody trying to find solutions how to deal with the schools, we

need to invest more money in schools, not a lockdown but for safety. they can put cameras around. a lot of people out here are mental. they want to do things. they want to do things to people. we have to come to a solution. we have to come together and build stronger. we need more security, people who will fight for our kids. the guy was talking about the democrats, i think they are much brighter. anytime a president said he is

going it to the capital. this is what they wanted to do anyway. host: we would like to thank all of our colors who're participated in our open forum segment. coming next, scott wilkens with the first amendment institute will be here to discuss the supreme court blocking of the social media moderation law and what it means for the future of free speech in the digital age. we will be right back. >> after months of closed door investigations, the january six committee will go public. thursday, members question key witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on the u.s. capitol. our coverage begins thursday at 8:00 eastern on c-span, our free mobile video app, or online at

c-span.org. >> tonight on q&a, veteran and author of uncertain ground discusses the impact of the wars in afghanistan and iraq. >> one of the things that marines used to say was we are at war and america is at the mall. that is a way of putting down civilians. i thought to myself, america is at war. this is where i'm supposed to be. i'm getting baby close for my son. the contempt i saw for civilian life, in a way it is crazy. you think it's a civic duty worth defending.

>> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on q&a. you can listen on all of our podcasts on the free c-span now app. >> weekends bring your book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. join our live conversation with a journalist who discusses immigration issues, drugs, his latest book. creator and host of the rubin report shares his thoughts on how to revive the american dream and callout woke culture. he's interviewed by the cato institute vice president. watch book tv and find a full

schedule. you can watch online anytime. >> c-span's online store, browse through our collection of c-span products, apparel, books, accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now at c-span shop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with scott wilkens of the first amendment institute who is here to explain the importance of the supreme court's move to block the social media moderation law and what this means for the future of's free speech in the digital age. good morning. guest: it's great to be here. host: explain to our viewers

what the institute is, what its mission is, how it is funded. guest: the institute is a nonprofit. the focus and i think that is very important in the current world is to strengthen freedom of speech in the digital age. we do that in three ways. we have strategic litigation. we get involved in certain cases. we are involved in the texas law litigation. that is one area we focus on. the second is research and public education. host: the supreme court this week blocked the social media moderation law. explain to us what the law did and then explained to us what

the supreme court move actually does. guest: the texas law which was passed last year does two main things. the first, which is the heart of the law, it prevents or prohibits social media platforms from discriminating, censoring user content based on the viewpoint of the content. what that means is social media platforms cannot remove content based on the viewpoint of the content area they can't attach their own labels, warning labels to that content. that is the main provision of the law. the law isn't restricted to that. it also contains a number of

transparency provisions that would require social media platforms to provide the public with information about how they moderate user content. what they do with the things that you post, why they remove certain content, this extends to -- the platforms have to tell users when their content is removed and the reason why it was removed. they have to provide users with the right to appeal to have that content removal reconsidered. host: explain to us what texas is defining as social media. are we talking about anything on the internet? are we talking about specific platforms like reddit,

instagram? what are they defining a social media platforms? guest: in the statute, it's a technical definition. it boils down to internet companies like facebook, twitter, youtube, reddit, platforms basically where users can post content, can interact with each other, that's just generally what it's about. it does cover many of the major social media companies, the largest wins. the statute tries to target the biggest companies by same only applies to companies that have 50 million active monthly users. it probably applies to facebook, twitter, youtube, and a few more. host: the attorney general of texas said this in his supreme

court filing. do you consider social media platforms to be common carriers and essential two-way america lives? guest: we respectfully disagree with the idea that they are common carriers. the basic reason is unlike the telegraph or other common carriers, social media platforms often exercise what we call editorial judgment. they make decisions about the content they want on their platforms. they remove content they

disagree with an attached warning labels. that is what common carriers don't engage in. there is a fundamental difference between the social media platforms and common carriers. to your second point, it is true that social media platforms play a very important role in our public discourse, and are participative democracy. the supreme court has recognized that. these social media platforms play a role in our nation and in freedom of speech. host: that's a perfect segue to my next question. explain to us the free speech implications of the law. how would it change free speech if the texas law was approved by the supreme court? guest: it changes the free

speech of the platforms. they have first amendment rights. it has an impact on the free speech of users. let me talk about the social media platforms. it would prevent them from moving content, it would prevent them from labeling content in various ways. it has a direct impact on the first amendment that -- amendment. i should say it requires various disclosures of social media platforms. that is something new. it would provide transparency into various things they do with respect to content moderation. that is how it impacts the first amendment rights of social media platforms.

with respect to the users, it has important impacts. the ability of the platforms to remove content, it's very important for users. these types of content that are removed are content that would make the platform much less useful, much less interesting for users. they would be flooded with spam, all kinds of objectionable content like glorification of violence, suicide, hate speech, it's a very long list of objectionable content that no one has an interest in seeing. host: the law came out of texas. florida has a similar one. part of it is because conservative politicians have complained that social media companies unfairly remove or

devote conservative viewpoints. do you agree with that? is this an appropriate solution? guest: the first part of your question, which talked about why the states passed these laws, it is clear in florida and texas that the governors of both states and some of the legislative leaders have said the reason they passed these laws was because the platforms sensor conservative speech. whether or not that's true, i think the most important way that free speech can be protected, the free speech of users can be protected, is what i talked about before, transparency. we can understand what the platforms are doing with respect to speech. we may get a better sense of the

way there algorithms ira ties content. we get a good idea of the kinds of rules that apply to content. the more we know about what the platforms to, the more we have an insight into how they impact public discourse. host: this is a good time for me to remind our viewers that they can take art in this conversation. we will open up our regular lines. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media.

the supreme court locked the social media moderation lot. did they talk about the merits of the law at all? what were we able to glean about what the supreme court will or will not do if this law comes in? guest: as you mentioned earlier, this is a temporary action by the court. what the court said is the law should be on hold while the legal challenge continues. it may ultimately wind up in the supreme court. that is where the court would actually tell us on the merits, they would address the law and explain whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional. it may save it part of the law is constitutional and part of it is not. we don't know what they would do. in their decision that just came

down, they didn't explain their reasoning, except for three dissenting justices. the rest of the court, the other six justices, didn't tell us their thoughts. we don't know what the court will ultimately do. with respect to the six justices, it was a one sentence order. host: which justices defected from this? do we know why? guest: alito wrote the decision. justice thomas and justice gorsuch joined it. the dissenting opinion, the main rationale there is a supreme court -- the supreme court should not interfere in what the lower courts did. to ask the supreme court to get involved, to put the social

media law on hold is sort of an extraordinary thing to ask the supreme court to do. the supreme court shouldn't have gotten involved and should let the case play out and let the texas law go into effect. the dissenters made clear that this is an incredibly important question, they think it's a question that should come before the court later. because it is such an important question it, the supreme court at this point shouldn't get involved. they expressed a majority of the court went the other way. they decided to put the law on hold while this appeal through the courts happens. host: florida has a similar law to texas.

does the supreme court locking the texas law affect florida? guest: it doesn't affect florida . one thing to explain here is the florida law is currently on hold. there has been no need for social media platforms to seek the emergency intervention of the court. that law is on hold. it will remain as the appeal continues. the decision in the texas case doesn't have any influence. host: when we talk about social media platforms, we talk about the section 230 act. this is what section 230 does. i want you to talk about how that affects the case. section 230 keeps online platforms from being held responsible for content users

post to their services. it gives them the ability to remove posts in good faith. does section 230 affect this case at all? should section 230 continue? guest: it does affect both of these cases, the florida case in the texas case. both sides have used section 230 and their arguments. it is quite complex how they use it. that is a lot of technical detail to go into. the social media platforms of argued that various parts of the law violate section 230 and are -- they can be struck down on

that basis. you will certainly see as the case proceeds, both sides addressing section 230, trying to use it to their advantage. it is in play. let me address the last part of your question. that is unclear. it is true that section 230, possible amendments are being considered by congress. there have been proposals. what happens there, we have no idea. host: we will start with walter who was calling from south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. guest: good morning. caller: i have a couple of comments. i don't understand and maybe you can enlighten me, these laws are

not doing what they are supposed to do. host: in what way? caller: i can go on my twitter account at any time during the day and there is pornography on there, there are derogatory things i don't want to see as a citizen. telephone and telegraph, you couldn't find that stuff. we talk about first amendment rights, my first memory is being intruded on because of these social media networks not policing and make sure that good stuff is on there. negative stuff, pornography, all the lies people put on there, it stirs up the nation. the social media companies are not doing anything about it. guest: what i would say there is the social media companies

certainly do a certain amount of that. people complain about how well they are doing it. if you go on their websites, they explain their policies and how they try to enforce them. they don't do a completely thorough job in addressing it. host: is there a place in this argument for the idea that the government shouldn't get involved in private businesses like social media companies? capitalism says that the government shouldn't be involved. is there of place for that point? guest: i really want to stress that the argument that texas and florida are making, if they were to succeed, would give the government and norma's power

over the social media platforms and over public discourse. it would allow the government to distort public discourse by prohibiting social media platforms from taking down all kinds of content from labeling content. that is a big problem. the first amendment addresses that problem. the first amendment prohibits the government from going that far. there is an important role for government here. there are things government should be able to do to try to let us all know how these platforms are operating with respect to removing content that users post. the government cannot interfere with -- to the extent that the florida and texas laws allow it

to. that is inconsistent with the first amendment. we have made that very clear in the legal filings we've made in the texas kate -- case. host: brian is calling from kansas city. good morning. caller: good morning. this is my first time calling in. i just wanted to comment on free speech in general and the subject matter you are discussing. this is such an issue because in the last 15 years, social media has become a channel. all the media companies lost their power over the narrative. that's why this has become an issue. i am 31.

i was taught sticks and stones may break my bones, i wish we could just get back to some common sense. guest: as i said before, these platforms have a norma's influence with respect to public discourse. just because of the size of these forms in which free speech happens, one of the key points about free speech is the viewpoints of various people. it's important that they be able to be exchanged and circulated because it is by hearing various viewpoints that we are able to make decisions about how our democracy should evolve.

as the supreme court has said in a different case, social media platforms provide that kind of space for public discourse. there may very well be viewpoints with which you disagree, it has long been a fundamental principle of the first amendment that just because we might be offended by some type of speech, that is not a valid reason for the government to censor that speech. host: the practical effects, if social media companies have to allow all viewpoints on their platforms. this person writes: is that a slippery slope we are

looking at? if social idiot companies must allow all viewpoints? guest: whether or not it's a slippery slope, as i've said before, requiring social media platforms to allow all forms of content is a clear violation of their first amendment rights. that is something government simply cannot do. if they try to do that, it would have negative practical effects. it would allow things like spam, all kinds of content, violent content, whether it's glorification of violence, glorification of suicide, hate speech, all kinds of content that i don't think anybody wants to see. the platforms have the first amendment right to remove that.

host: the night institute filed a brief in support of the social media companies challenging the provision. you also urge the supreme court to reject both texas and the social media arguments about how the first amendment applies to social media. explain to us what your position was. guest: in the two cases, they are not yet in the supreme court in terms of merits of the law. in both of those cases, we filed briefs. our argument is what i mentioned, the social media platforms have a first amendment right of their own to decide what they want to publish and

don't want to publish. they have a first amendment right to explain and express their own views. those are things it under the first amendment they have the right to do. these laws violate that right. we made that very clear. we also made the following point, which we think is very important. although the government can't tell the platforms what to publish, they can with certain restrictions tell the platforms that they have to be transparent about things they do. the government can go too far and can harm free speech. the government can have an important role to play here and making sure we understand these in norma's liam important forums

for speech, how they moderate our content. host: let's go back to the phone lines. good morning. caller: hello? i want to talk about social media. it is the modern town square. the laws that apply to the town square should apply to social media companies today. hello? they tried to stop someone from pendant flyers. the supreme court said it's a town square, they can hand out whenever they want. anyway, i think that should apply to social mitt. they are the modern town square.

unless posts for niagara feet, they should be allowed to do whatever they want. guest: the platforms? should the users we able to do whatever they want? in some ways, you are right. the platforms are kind of a digital public square. the supreme court said that. there is an important difference in terms of government regulation. the social media platforms are private companies. because of that, the users don't have any first amendment rights against the platforms. they do against the government, they don't against the platform. they can't sue the platforms and say i have a right to post this content. that's because these are private companies. they create these important spaces.

they are private spaces. it's different than the actual town square we are talking about. you did mention an important supreme court case about leafleting that is one of the cases that is being argued. it is being advanced by florida and texas. we will have to see when one of these cases makes it to the supreme court. we will have to wait. host: i want to get back quickly. i wanted to challenge the contention that social media is a public town square. the government didn't create it. the government doesn't maintain it. the government doesn't own it. doesn't that move it from being a public town square? guest: that's exactly right. the key word there is public.

the town square is not a private space. a private company doesn't own it. private companies own the platform. that is a fundamental reason why they have a first amendment right against the government to be able to remove content from their private platform and attached warning labels to content on their private platform. host: let's go to barry who is calling from new york. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a great discussion. thank you so much for c-span. thank you for your work. i'm going to be looking into how i can support you.

you stole my thunder because you been talking about why it is that these private companies can't and should not be regulated by the government as to what content they allow and this allow. i keep thinking about something i learned in history class years ago. i can't remember all the details. i remember that taverns before the revolutionary war played a huge role in disseminating information. the patriots, hamilton spent a lot of time in taverns reading freethinkers who wanted to break

from england. there were taverns that were primarily where people would gather that were loyalists. if we were to ask any of our founding fathers, if we explained to them what twitter is or what reddit is or any of the social media platforms, they would say that's like a tavern. they would not say that's like a public square. they would understand that. i think where this goes is i know there have been several knockoffs.

there is a big attempted knockoff right now which is failing. they were free-for-all's. out of curiosity, i logged into several eez -- of these. they were horrible forms of people who were trying to outdo one another in trolling and being extremist. i like that i can go onto a platform and hear other people's views, but it's not dominated by these fringe people who are trying to we each other by trolling. guest: i think that is a very important role of the platforms play. the government can't prevent them from playing it because they have the right to remove

content. they could choose not to. one of the things that is important here is we have different kinds of platforms. they have different kinds of communities. users can choose what they want to join or see. that is really important for our democracy and for the free speech of users online. people can vote with their feet. they may very well do that. one thing i will say is we should be concerned that you have a few very large social media platforms that are owned by individuals or extremely wealthy people.

that's concerning. those individuals would wield so much power over these spaces, these in norma's sleeve large spaces in which individuals are able to engage in free speech. host: i want to ask, now that the supreme court has locked the texas law, what is the next step in the fight? guest: right now, these laws are on appeal. there is an appeal court below the supreme court. whatever happens in that court, the two sides they may appeal to the supreme court. the supreme court may take the case. they may decide the case. that is the ultimate decision.

we really don't know when the court will address it. they may be challenges in other states. we are kept waiting. because the courts move slowly, it will take a while to find out what happens in these cases. it's a fascinating thing to watch. certainly, we will be watching it very closely. host: because of our conversation today, we know florida has a lot like this. we've talked about texas. are there any other states doing similar laws? guest: a lot of states are considering laws. some of which are very similar to the texas law. some use the same wording. those are under consideration. it's not clear if they will pass

. they are under consideration. california and new york are considering different laws that would regulate social media platforms in different ways. there are many states considering regulation of social media platforms. host: let's talk to chris calling from arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. it seems to me the platforms have the protection of a publisher, they don't have the responsibility of a publisher. the only argument for that that i have heard as an economic one. are there any other reasons besides economics why we don't treat these platforms as publishers? guest: as a legal matter, there

was this idea that in order for the internet to grow for these various companies, there needed to be some kind of federal immunity from lawsuits for what is published. there is a legal rationale. you can agree with that or disagree with if that makes sense. we have the first amendment. we have first amendment rights of the platforms to publish or not publish. there is a contrast here. i can see why people may think, how can there be these two things of the same time. they are. that is something the courts will need to deal with. they are bringing these laws up, they are bringing section 230

up. the courts are trying to make decisions about the first amendment. it is complicated. we will have to see what happens. host: janet is calling from brooklyn. can you give us a quick question before we run out of time? caller: the supreme court ruled that a company as a person so they can donate to campaigns. people are allowed to have first amendment rights. what's going on in russia and how they are telling how the war is going there people because they control the media. you can't have it both ways. that's my comment. host: what does the supreme court decision that corporations

can be considered persons as far as political campaigning goes, does it affect this case? guest: that's hard to know. i don't know what arguments they will make. they haven't made arguments about the ability of social media platforms to contribute to political campaigns. that hasn't been part of the cases so far. host: we would like to thank scott wilkens, who has discussed with us and explained the supreme court's move to temporarily block the texas social media moderation. thank you so much for your time this morning. guest: it's great to join you. thank you for your engagement and asking very good questions. host: we would like to thank all of our colors and viewers for another great washington journal. remember to stay safe and continue to wash her hands.

we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. have a great sunday, everyone. ♪ ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter spent billions upgrading technology, empowering communities big and small. charter is connecting us. announcer: charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ announcer: live today on

in-depth, our guest will talk about immigration issues and the drug epidemic in the u.s. he is the author of several books, including most recently "the least of us." it covers the neuroscience of synthetic drugs. join the conversation with your calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. before the program visit c-spanshop.org to get your copy of the book. ♪ announcer: "washington journal," every day we take your calls on the news of the day and we discussed policy issues that impact you. monday morning, kyle cheney previews the january 6 hearings.

brett samuels, white house reporter for "the hill," talks about the challenges facing domestic and foreign policy. also, the iran nuclear deal and the prospects for a renewed deal with the executive director of the arms control association. watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern monday morning on c-span or c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. ♪ announcer: after months of closed-door investigations the house january 6 committee is set to go public. tune in as they question key witnesses about what transpired and why. watch live coverage beginning

thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobil video app, or on c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. announcer: the u.s. house plans to debate and vote on gun legislation this week. a response to recent mass shootings, including at an elementary school in texas, where 19 students and two teachers were killed. the house judiciary committee met for nine hours to debate the gun reform proposals pending in the house. here is part of that debate focusing on an amendment that would bolster school security. this is four hours. [indistinct chatter]