gretzky the great one. now here's "viewpoint." ♪ good evening. i'm eliot spitzer, this is "viewpoint." president obama's announcement that we favors same-sex marriage has parked a natural political debate, but he left the legal issue who gets to define marriage to the states. >> i continue to believe that this is an issue that will be worked out at a local level, because historically this has not been a federal issue. i think it's important to recognize that folks who feel

very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as between a man and a woman, many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective, a bunch are friends of mine. pastors and people who i deeply respect. >> including mr. obama own paster. who fears the president's change of view could trigger a legal conflict between religious institutions and the government. he told the "washington post" and i quote: as for presumptive gop challenging, mitt romney former republican chair ed gillespie, said the president's announcement meant same-sex marriage would be an issue this fall. >> i think it's an important

issue for people and, you know, it engenders strong feelings on both sides. i think it's important to be respectful in how we talk about our differences. >> though respect for differences became a problem for romney today after five of his prep school friends described romney leading a group to cut a bleach blond boy's hair. >> i had no idea what that individual's sexual orientation was. that wasn't something we all discussed or considered in the 60s. i don't recall the incident myself, but i have seen the reports, and not going to argue with that. >> he also apologized for any high school high jinx where he might have gone too far. joining me to discussion this story,

story, noah feldman, bemis professor of law at harvard law school and also a columnist with "bloomberg view," and president of equality matters, who blogged on the story on the "new yorker's" website today under the title "why obama couldn't wait." noah let me start with you. the president obviously in a very profoundly important personal statement of principal said he beliefs this same-sex marriage, but has he ducked the legally important issue by saying but now i'm leaving it to the states to define what marriage really means? >> so far, yes, he is ducking the issue, because although it is true that his administration no longer supports the defensive marriage act which would otherwise require the federal government to recognize marriages performed in states which do allow gay marriage he still hasn't had to weigh in before the supreme court on the big-ticket question, which is whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and that issue will come to the court and when it does the administration will have to take stand one way or

another. he hasn't yet committed himself to that question. >> so from your perspective as the legal scholar, the legal historian, is the president still involved in a two-step here, or is he doing something that is as dramatic as the headlines suggest, because he is still not confronting what is claimed to be the fundamental issue. is there a constitutional right here that he uphold. >> the president keeps speaking about the evolution of his ideas. and there is one tick left. so far he has gone from saying i don't personally support the rights of gay marriage but states can do what they to going i do support gay marriage, but states will have to say, and then he'll have to say i think the constitution entitled people

to gay marriage. eventual will not be a state law issue. >> that's right. and of course we know that issue will be presented to the supreme court probably not -- certainly not before this november's election, but at some point in whoever the president is in the next presidential term. richard, do you think the president should have gone to the next step and said we are going to federallize this? or did he sort of do what is reasonable fair, you give him a pass on his evolution, we all know evolution takes time is it fair for him to have left this to the states? >> i pretty much agree with everything noah said. i think the announcement yesterday was very dramatic and very historic and i think we

should try not to put too fine of point on it. giveren what the president has instructed the justice department to go in the sexual orientation discrimination cases, and the policy has been to urge the court to apply a very tough level of scrutiny in those cases, and when this issue does come before the supreme court given everything we know about where the administration stands on these issues especially the stance that the justice department has taken on these issues, they are going to have to say to the supreme court that there is a federal constitutional right to marriage equality. >> so you believe evolution will continue? >> i think he is pretty much there. i really -- there -- you know i have been very tough on the president on this issue, but i was completely satisfied yesterday, and i had no problem with what he was saying. when he talks about this being an issue left to the states i

think what he means is usually it's states that decide who gets a marriage license. >> maybe this was evolution -- there was evolution after '96. but let me sort of ask it this way, have we not spent the last three years cleaning up in a way, the mess created by president clinton, doma a bill he signed that violated most of our sense of decency, and don't ask, don't tell. >> i have worked for president clinton -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> i don't think i would exactly characterize it that way. >> but it is kind of true isn't it? >> here is the way i like to look at it and that is that, you know, back in '96 when president clinton signed the defensive marriage act, his political advisor said it was too risky not to. he felt he was forced to for

political reasons, but now because the country has traveled so far, and we have traveled so far culturally on these issues president obama was able to take a different stand and reject the advice of some of his political advisors. so i give him a lot of credit i really think it's a profile of courage. >> i agree with you. noah, the legal issue or philosophical issue raised by the president's pastor will churches will required to recognize marriages which they do not wish based upon their own doctrine to recognize? how does the law interact with religion in that first amendment space? >> the constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and there's no way that any law passed by anyone in the country, congress, the state, whomever can require a church or a

synagogue or mosque to perform a marriage that they do not want to perform. that's an absolute protection under the first amendment. the part that is not completely ridiculous that the pastor mentioned is that anti-discrimination laws do govern those parts of a church that don't have to do with the clergy themselves or the employees of the institution. and if you imagine an janitor who works for a church who is part of a same-sex couple the church may have to provide healthcare insurance for the spouse. sort of analogous to the issue between the bishops and the president. >> noah the way i describe it to people is there are two components to religion, one is the civil, and then the religious. if people choose to have a

religious ceremony that is where church or any denomination can define what the parameters of that marriage may be and we cannot force a religion to recognize a marriage it does not wish to recognize. but somewhat eakin to the issue of belt control, we're going to have to figure out how spouses will or will not be able to get birth control or health care in a marriage that the state recognizes and under lasses people have to pay for it. where do those laws end up going? >> my guess is we draw a pretty bright line between the people doing the re-i will gous work and those in the back offices. on the other hand people doing back-room work probably will. religions exist in a cultural

context, and those values do sometimes change overtime. so in a cultural sense the more the country accepts same-sex marriage the more likely we will be to see some changing their views on that question. >> i think it is fair to say the evolution is a bit slower than the evolution that we're seeing in the political context. richard back to you. obviously there is a huge political aspect to this. the screaming and shouting the past day does it help or hurt the president? give it your distillation of all you have heard. >> i -- i think it's very hard to say. i think it may change the electoral calculation in some places. this is a 50/50 issues in the country as a whole. but i think where it really helps the president is with

young voters with his democratic-based voters and totally consistent with the president's message if you want to go forward, he is the candidate of the future this is about the future. this issue -- mitt romney's stand on this issue makes him look like grandpa. he is the old guy who doesn't want to get moving with where the country is headed. it's clear where we are headed on this issue, and mitt romney -- >> look i think a whole range of issues and of course this is me speaking the republican is backing it's a into being the party of the last century. >> right. >> did joe screw up? [ laughter ] >> i love him for it. did joe just say what was on his mind. and the president said oh my goodness, why did i pick this guy? or was this orchestrated? >> i don't think it was orchestrated. i think he probably went a little further than he had

permission to go. and there were reports this afternoon that he actually apologized to the president. >> right. the conspiracy theorists would say even that was orchestrated -- >> i hadn't thought of that one. >> any way it is all very complicated. noah feldman, bemis professor of law at harvard law school and also a columnist with "bloomberg view," and i just want folks to know one of the smartest lawyers i have ever matters, who blogged on the story on the "new yorker's" website today under the title "why obama couldn't wait." thank you both forcoming on the show tonight. >> thank you elliot. >> did i imagine this or did president obama completely reform wall street a couple of years ago. actually we all imagined it. our conversation is with you the viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers.

[ male announcer ] this is corporate caterers miami, florida. in here, great food demands a great presentation. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards from kitchen to table. this technology allows us to collaborate with our drivers to make a better experience for our customers. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ ♪

battle speech right? may i? [ horse neighs ] for too long, people have settled for single miles. with the capital one venture card you'll earn double miles on every purchase, every day! [ visigoths cheer ] hawaii, here we come. [ alec ] so sign up today for a venture card at capitalone.com. and start earning double. [ all ] double miles! [ brays ] what's in your wallet? can you play games on that? not on the runway. no.

imagine this a sitting president, let's gay george w. bush is found to have exchanged dozens of text messages a day with the owner of fox news. this image brings us to our number of the day which is in fact dozens per day that's how many text messages a news corp executive who is as close to the murdoches as anybody in the country exchanged with british prime minister according to peter osborne. osborne reports, brooks quote: horrible if you are the prime minister not us. and former sun editor kelvin mackenzie is making it a step

further, betting the texts will be the downfall of his career. he has measured 1 thousand pounds that cameron will be out come november because of what will be revealed in the messages. the exnews of the world editor testified today, his first statements in public since being arrested on suspicion of phone hacking and corruption last july. he embodies the all-too koezy relationship between murdoch and jennifer granholm is politically direct on current tv. >>the dominoes are starting to fall. (vo) granholm is live in the war room. >> what should women be doing? >> electing women to office. (vo) she's a political trailblazer. >>republicans of course didn't let facts get in the way of spin.

>>do it, for america. it takes people with real knowledge to build and maintain a race car. polymers, hydo-carbons, thermal plastics, math and science? you bet it is. many kids don't understand how important these subjects can be that's why time warner cable developed connect a million minds. to introduce kids in our communities to the opportunities that inspire them to develop these important skills. how can my car go faster? maybe your child will figure it out. find out more at connectamillionminds.com when he signed the dodd-frank consumer protection act in july 2010, president obama said it represented the strongest financial protections in

history. so what went wrong? joining me now joining me now is financial crisis, in which he described goldman sachs as a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, matt taibbi matt you know i will always use that when i introduce you. and former united states treasurer under president reagan, and author of "bay and her boys unexpected lessons i learned as a single mom," bay buchanan. thank you both for being here. a real joy to have two scholars of this issue. matt let me begin with you, you wrote a lengthy article about why dodd-frank failed. >> i think without making a value judgment i think what is really scary about the story we're writing now is it has been

gradually chipped away by industry over the course of the last two years, and the lesson is if you pass any kind of reform and there's a powerful enough and well-funded enough lobby on the other side there is no way for it to stay passed. eventually you just ex-up with a law full of holes. >> they strangle it in the womb. so you are saying dodd-frank is not what we thought it would be. >> right. the voelker rule has now been delayed, the consumer financial protection bureau which is under constant attack and then the other thing was the derivatives portion of dodd-frank, title seven, which is now there is an avalanche of

new bills which would riddle it full of holes. >> bay i presume you think dodd-frank was a mistake in the first place. >> you presume right. >> what would you do instead? what lessons do we take from the cataclysm of '08? >> it is a fair question and what the governor wants to do is not only repeal it but replace it. because we recognize something had to be done we just think congress does what it does when it sees a problem is overreact. this is a burden on the private sector. what do you do in its place? obviously transparency is key. also you need to have -- the increased capital was really important that we have those limits that went up there.

derivatives have to be regulated, we agree. but they should be simple and predictable without having to hire hundreds of lawyers to comply with them. >> it sounds to me like actually he is not saying anything too fundamentally different. would he -- does he believe in a voelker rule? >> well i think the problem with the voelker rule is that you can't enforce it because nobody -- it's not defined. we don't know which investments fall under which category and that's why they are punting -- >> i hear you saying it is too complicated, but where does the complexity come from. >> i don't think it is that complicated, we have the glass spiegel act for years, and that seemed to work just fine until the late '90s and that's what the voelker rule is intending to

do. >> not only is it 2300 pages, that was just the beginning, eliot, as a result big banks can handle it. small banks are being killed. that's who funds small business and that's where we get jobs. >> i understand it is a lengthy bill, glass spiegel was shorter, but the bible is long. there is nothing that says necessarily shorter is better. let's focus on the principals instead. i hear matt say that spiegel worked separating commercial banking, and then the high-risk stuff. do you think that distinction and separation makes sense? >> i think -- you talked about length. do we have small businesses read

ulises? it's killing them. they can't afford to comply with it. >> community banks are on the other side of this issue, because when you have a too big to fail bank and the purpose of dodd-frank was to reign these banks in. and they naturally have a competitive advantage over the smaller banks -- >> you need to go talk to some small banks -- >> i have. >> they are being shut down because of this bill. >> they are being shut down because they can't complete with banc of america and -- >> i want to cite a brilliant article written by warren stevens, the mid-sized investment bank in little rock arkansas. he comes down squarely on the side that matt is talking about. he wants the big banks are cut

down so they are basically half of the size they are now. do you agree with his financial view? >> no depending on how he does it. i don't think it's the role of the federal government to start getting their nose into the private sector. they should reck late it, yes. there should be some rules out there to guide that but you can't be having washington making decisions about the private sector because when you do you end up with an economy like we have today. >> but that's exactly the idea we're trying to get at. we don't want these big banks having an implicit guarantee of the federal government we want to make them smaller and less dangerous. that was the original idea of this reform -- >> and it failed. >> it is so full of holes that it's infective now. >> bay, let me state it this way. jpmorgan which lost $2 billion

we find out today had a federal guarantee behind it. they can borrow money for less the smaller banks can't borrow for less. in order to get rid of the federal guarantee, we need to make these banks smaller? >> i don't think the taxpayer should be bailing out these big banks, i couldn't agree with you more. small banks have a different role to play than the big banks, right now big banks don'ten want though small guys because they aren't profitable anymore. so where do the little guys go? they have always done very well in community banks, and now they are so burdened that they cannot even loan because of -- for fear of violation -- >> i don't think that's why they are not lending -- >> certainly one of the reasons -- >> well i don't think -- matt do you think we could go back to

a glass spiegel world? would they work? >> yes, there was the [ indiscernible ] 11 amendment, i think we would definitely go back to glass spiegel. it seemed like it worked for a long time. we can't have these giant companies like citigroup anymore that are intermingled and create this enormous risk to the taxpayer. >> will we see from governor romney -- will he give us a bill that will be shorter that will define what you think is the appropriate level of transparency? >> yes, he will. >> before november? >> he has mentioned several issues. i don't know that because i just don't know it. but there's no question if we want to turn this economy around one thing that has to go is dodd-frank and a number of other regulations. >> all right. all right. we'll continue this. we outvote you two-one, but

that's all right. [ laughter ] [ laughter ] >> thank you for coming in. prince charles delivers the weather, and the colddddddddddddddddddddddddddd planned parenthood. anna talked to a conservative and it got a little contentious. drama, when we return.

still to come the tragedy the global warming has fallen off the political map. but first howard stern talks whoopi john stossel talks serfdom, and brian kilmeade is not wearing any pants. >> the president of the united states is gay. [ laughter ] >> we have arrived at a point where the president of the united states is going to lead a war on traditional marriage. >> this afternoon your marriage started feeling a little weak

didn't it? you got a sudden urge to abandon your family and go antiquing up at the cape. [ laughter ] >> and it's all because today barack obama became the first sitting president to push the rainbow button and launch gay-many-gedon. >> friendly, gay friendly. >> i'm not wearing pants yet. >> when i'm not sure what do you think i'm doing? i'm fighting crime. and i have to change a lot. >> if i'm boring you, let's talk about whoopi's sex life? what is going on with you? >> i am happier now than i have ever been before -- >> when was the last time you have been with a man? >> you know. >> one of our viewers asked should marijuana be legalized for medical use -- >> aren't there issues of importance that you want to talk

about. >> we are on the road to serfdom as the government getting bigger we become smaller. >> i'm saying yes. i'm saying yes. >> we're going to let you vote. does he get a second date? >> yes, he does. >> oh that's a winner. >> there will be snow for the highland, the potential for a few flurries over belmont -- who the hell wrote this script. >> the nobles spoke >>the dominoes are starting to fall. (vo) former two term governor, jennifer granholm, is politically direct on current tv >> what should women be doing? >> electing women to office. what makes sam adams boston lager great is as simple as abc. a, the appearance. amber. [ jim ] b, balance. sam adams has malt sweetness hoppy bitterness. [ jim ] c, complexity. pine notes grapefruit notes.

only believe your own pallet. go taste them. break the ice with breath-freshening cooling crystals. ice breakers.

and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said "i want 50% more cash in my bed!" phhht! 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪ ♪ almost every climate

scientists warn if you we don't do something about global warming we're heading to a disaster. today james hansen once again told us what would happen. for nasa's goddard institute for space studies and op-ed contributor for the "new york times," james hansen. first of all, 1981 you were ahead of the curve; is that fair to say? >> there were other scientists that knew, and the academy had a report that looked at the matter, but, yeah maybe with some of the consequences we were ahead of the curve. but my opinions are my personal opinion -- i'm not speaking for the government. >> i wish you were quite frankly. but that's a separate issue. we hear you loud and clear. i say this because -- you are

being too kind to everybody else in the scientific world. you were ahead of the curve. today your op-ed in the times became that much more relevant. why are the canadian tar sands a specific risk? >> the tar shale in the united states has actually more carbon than the tar sands, and then there is the fraccing that is going on. what is underby the scientific community is we cannot burn these fossil fuels without pushing the climate system beyond tipping points beyond the point of no return such that young people inherit a situation that's out of their control. this is understood -- >> i want to get to the numbers in a second, but what was brand to me, i thought a barrel of oil was a barrel of oil. what you are saying is where it comes from and how you generate

it tar sands and fraccing emit that much more co2? >> they are add on top of these conventional fossil fuels. and tar sangeds is worse because it takes a lot of work to get it out of the ground. it is dirtier and makes a lot of local pollution, but there is a limit on how much carbon we can put in the atmosphere and the convention oil and gas, that's enough to get us up to the dangerous point, and so we can't burn these unconventional fossil fuels. >> give us the numbers, how far have we the last 20 years, and how far will we move in the next

20? >> with the ceo 2 -- >> yes, co2 and then what that means in terms of clay mate change. >> co2 is now 393 parts per million. what we know is that is about as much as we can have in the atmosphere. some of that will be taken up by the ocean slowly over the next several decades, so if we begin to phase out our emissions, in the next few years, begin to phase down our emissions, we would solve the problem, but on the contrary we are finding every fossil fuel we can think of and adding faster and faster to the emissions. that's makes this situation out of control. >> where will we be in 20 years? >> we would be about 60 more we would be about 450, and the last time we had that much sea level was 50 feet higher.

>> so is there a tipping point beyond which there is no return. >> there is, and it's not very well defined, but it's clear if we go another decade or two, we will have passed that. in the sense which ear putting more and more heat into the ocean which has an effect. one effect is it melts the ice shelves, and that's what keeps the ice sheets from dumping themselves into the ocean. >> let me make you out of perhaps your comfort zone. the political pushback on an issue like this is okay fine we can say we're going to be holier than thou we'll going to natural gas, whatever it may be how about china? how do you then respond when you have this conversation to folks that say what are we supposed to

do about china? >> china is our best hope at this moment. they do not deny the science, and they are building about 30 nuclear power plants. they have been leaders in wind and solar, although they are backing off of that and investing more and more in nuclear. but they do not deny the science, and they are planning to go to no carbon electricity. >> so they are pushing alternatives so they are our allies. >> yes, and as hard as they >> the director for nasa's goddard institute for space studies and op-ed contributor for the "new york times," james hansen who's op-ed in the new york times is mandatory reading. you have the righthththththththththththththththththththththththththththththt

if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now.

later on "viewpoint," did joe biden really get ahead of himself on gay marriage or has everyone else just fallen behind. first let's check in with what is on the show tonight governor? >> it's party night in hollywood. we'll get the latest on the clooney multi-million dollar fund raiser. we're going to also look at how the president's move yesterday is going to impact the house and the senate races in the fall and for what is working, we're

going to look at the push to get jobs from america's recent college grads, and wendy spencer who is the chief executive of americore is a guest. >> that is an amazing program. you raise the issue of what will the fallout be in the senate and house races. you are right, this will have sort of down ballot t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t >>(narrator) gavin newsom, lieutenant governor of california, and former mayor of san francisco is coming to current tv. >>every night on cable news networks everyone's focusing on what's wrong. i want this show to move past that. i love creative people, and with all the vexing problems we have we need creative thinking. >>(narrator) with interviews with notables from silicon valley, hollywood, and beyond. >>at the end of the day this show's simple. it's about ideas. ideas are the best politics. ideas can bring us together. >>(narrator) the gavin newsom show. premiers friday may 18th. only on current tv.

vaccinations save lives. >>we are very committed to the safety of our products. >>but are mandatory shots doing more harm than good? >>i see children injured every day. >>the controversy has gone viral. >>how many are being sacrificed? >>see "the greater good" on current tv. >>and while you watch, join the live chat at current.com/greatergood. >>our system is not working. >>there are always some risks. >>i don't think it's that back and white. the science is not there. >>only on current tv. ♪ let's give three cheers for joe biden, we love him for his uncanny way of committing gasps. that's what biden did sunday on meet the press when he essentially said gay marriage was fine by him. it raised a crescendo of pressure on obama to acknowledge

his own evolution on this. and prompted the president's dramatic announcement yesterday. maybe it was all a set up just like the conspiratorial minded are saying but i doubt it. my feeling is sometimes despite the best-made plans stuff just happens especially when joe is around. and this was one of those times, but whichever it is alls well that ends well and this is a great ending. it might turn politics murkier. are these flip flops or evolution, and how do we tell them apart? maybe when we agree with someone it's evolution. and when we don't, it's

hypocrisy. consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. consistency changes as the facts change and maturity sets in. and question that even applies to elected officials. they can still reform their views especially on fundamental issues like this one. maybe we should be more tolerant about these shifts,or maybe it's just that i agree with where the president came out. the point is we heard the right answer yesterday after evolutions revolutions, changes in the national pulse, and a little dasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasasas [ male announcer ] this is corporate caterers miami, florida. in here, great food demands a great presentation. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards from kitchen to table. this technology allows us to collaborate with our drivers

to make a better experience for our customers. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ ♪ ah, claim trouble. [ dennis ] you should just switch to allstate, and get their new claim satisfaction guarantee. hey, he's right man. [ dennis ] only allstate puts their money where their mouth is. yup. [ dennis ] claim service so good, it's guaranteed. [ foreman ] so i can always count on them. unlike randy over there. that's one dumb dude. ♪ ♪ the new claim satisfaction guarantee. dollar for dollar, nobody protects you like allstate. the chill of peppermint. the rich dark chocolate. york peppermint pattie get the sensation.

you'd spot movement, gather intelligence with minimal collateral damage. but rather than neutralizing enemies in their sleep you'd be targeting stocks to trade. well, that's what trade architect's heat maps do. they make you a trading assassin. trade architect. td ameritrade's empowering web-based trading platform. trade commission-free for 60 days, and we'll throw in up to $600 when you open an account. in the age of the internet has privacy become a con accept of a by-gone era. twitter and facebook built massive businesses based on the

desire of individuals to document every aspect of their lives and the company's ability to harness and sell that information, but what if the government begins uses those sites have we entered into the world of george orwell's 1984. here to delve into the issue is street protester who is currently fighting the manhattan district attorney who is trying to gain access to information on his twitter account. malcolm let me start with you. you must have done something horrendous for them to be trying to dig into your twitter. >> awful, elliot i'm accused of blocking traffic. >> and for that they are trying to dig down and get your twitter account and all of the messages you sent and other stuff as well. >> apparently they need three months of electronic data to prove i was on a bridge when i

shouldn't have been on a bridge. >> let me ask this though. you are not -- you acknowledge that you were on -- you were there protesting but your problem is you don't think they should get access to your twitter information. >> right. the issue is the way they are going about getting this information. they are not just looking for -- looking on my page. they didn't just follow me with their account, which they have. what they are doing is trying to go to twitter and get all of the information from months ago. >> and you have been told that you cannot protest this subpoena as a matter of law. >> the judge ruled on my motion for standing that i didn't have standing -- >> which means you are not -- your information you somehow don't have standing. aiden you are not malcolm's lawyer, you represent the aclu. what are you doing in this case and why? >> why this case is so important is this isn't the first time the government is trying to get an individual's net activities by

issuing a subpoena and it's not going to be the last time. and what makes this case so important is what you were just talking about. the judge here found that twitter users like mr. harris don't have the right to go to court to try to defend their constitutional rights. >> and it's also a question of what are they trying to get am i correct? it's not merely your twitter messages arguably you don't have any privacy right in that information, but they are trying to dig down one step beneath the messages. >> they are also asking for basic customer information, which include ip information. they can reveal your location. so they have asked for -- basically where mr. harris was over a three and a half month time period when he was speaking. and that is really important, because it imfully indicates the first amendment.

>> it's not even the ip information, they are going back three months to find out where you were during the entire three-month period of time. >> that is correct. >> am i correct there was a supreme court decision that said that the government couldn't put a gps, a tracking device on people's car without a warrant? >> that's correct. >> why can they do this? >> well, it's a little different -- >> who's side are you on -- >> come on aiden. >> the government actually put a device on here. they are asking a third-party for that. the mere fact that they are asking that mr. harris has relied on a third-party to use the internet shouldn't make the difference here. individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy of what they do on the internet. >> we keep coming back to the phrase expectation of privacy, which the government can't just

override it without some showing. so is that what you are arguing to the court. that malcolm has that right -- >> well first of all -- >> the aclu. >> do they have broader constitutional rights when they take action on the internet. and they have said that internet activity is fully protected just like traditional speech. >> if you had believed by using your twitter account you would be giving the government information about where you were at every moment. >> there is a difference about sending out information about where you are at that information being advocated against you in court. if this was just public information they could pull off of the internet they could have just done that and saved everybody a bunch of time but

they didn't. >> and they can't. because the information they are seeking is not just the message sent out but also the individual tracking information, which is not generally accessible to folks. >> they filed two subpoenas, the first one asked for all sorts of information, unconstrained, direct messages everybody about the count. they have sense taylored that a little better on the second round, but the judge ruled on the first one, so as far as the judge is concerned, it is everything. >> if aiden wins this the proposition would be the government could get information about where any one of us was at anytime we with are using an electronic device like this. >> absolutely. your personal emails photos online diaries and that's why individuals need to be able to go to court to defend their rights. we're not saying the government can never get this information, they just need to get a warrant

first. >> that's right. the critical issue -- one has been what showing does the government have to make before we permit this invasion of privacy? courts judges sign orders giving access to information, but here they did not make that showing. >> and here there wasn'tn't even a court making a showing. >> just so it is clear when i but attorney general we would issue those subpoenas. i happen to fundamentally disagree with what they are doing here. information like this simply should not be accessible to the government without a showing. we do not live in george orwell's 1994. this is a dangerous fundamental threat to our civil liberties. aden fine, senior staff attorney for the aclu's speech, privacy and technology project, and malcolm harris, thank yoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyoyo