Florida governor announces crackdown on Big Tech

close

Video

Florida governor announces crackdown on Big Tech

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis details latest initiative on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight'

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," February 2, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON,  HOST: Good evening, and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

We've got an admission for you. For more than four years, we've been telling you almost every week that the biggest threat to your basic freedoms in America is not actually the Federal government. We thought that for a long time, the Federal government is infuriating. It can be stupid and dangerous, obviously. But at least in the case of the government, you theoretically have some control over its behavior since it's a democracy. 

In this moment, right now, the bigger threat to your family turned out to be huge publicly held corporations, particularly the tech monopolies. Why? Because you have zero control over their behavior. They truly aren't interested in what you think. And yet, they have enormous control over your life and you should be worried about that. You probably already are worried about it. 

Here is the correction we want to make. We were wrong. Rest easy, America. We've got happy news for you tonight. Good tidings from our friends in the academic research community. 

On Monday, a pair of researchers from New York University in New York City released what they described as a study of social media and censorship and they didn't hide their conclusions in footnotes. They got right to it in the title. 

This new paper is called quote, "False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives." It's quite a literal study. 

So it turns out what we've been telling you for years isn't true. It's merely an unfounded claim. There's no truth to it. That's what they concluded. It's all there in the paper. We read it. 

On Page 16, we learned that yes, quote, "Conservatives frequently point to Twitter's practice of suspending or permanently banning account holders as evidence of bias against the right." And that is true, they never stopped whining those conservatives. Happily the study concludes, however, "Facts don't support this claim. Conservatives do get suspended or banned for violating Twitter's rules against such things as harassment, hateful conduct, or in Trump's case, glorifying violence. But (this is the good news) liberals are excluded in this fashion as well." 

So it happens to everyone and that should reassure you. 

Have we got some numbers on that, NYU? Well, no, actually, we can't. 

In the words of the quote, "study," pinning down precise proportions on censorship is impossible because Twitter doesn't release sufficient data. Are you following the reasoning here? Their conclusion? Twitter is not biased, and we can be certain it's not biased because Twitter refuses to release data on who it bans. Case Closed. 

But wait a second, you might object? What about all those people I see on this show all the time, talking about how Twitter shut them down for having unauthorized political opinions? We should tell you, the authors did assess that, they are researchers, that's their job and they came to this conclusion. 

All of those people who are banned, every one of them -- victims of a mistake. As they noted on Page 17 of the study, quote, "Twitter sometimes makes mistakes." If that sounds familiar, it's because that is also Twitter's explanation for censorship, almost every single time. 

Do supporters of the Joe Biden administration get banned the same way by mistake? We can't tell you that because Twitter won't give up the numbers. What we do know from the staff at NYU is that shutting down "The New York Post's" entire Twitter account right before the election because the newspaper printed stories that were unflattering to the Biden family was not censorship. Oh, no, no, no. 

According to NYU, shutting down a newspaper's account for its political views during a presidential election is not censorship, it is instead -- and we are quoting now -- "reasonable."  

Why is it reasonable? Well, because presumably, unlike, say, The Pentagon Papers, or virtually every scoop "The New York Times" has ever published, "The New York Post" used information that was not publicly available in its stories about Hunter Biden, and that's totally wrong and it should be censored, which is not actually censorship. It's just commonsense. It's reasonable. 

We didn't know any of this, but of course, we're not professional researchers at NYU. No one else in the media seems skeptical about it at all. They seemed grateful for the study. "The Washington Post" promoted its findings on Monday. The headline for "The New York Daily News," which we should tell you is a direct competitor to "The New York Post," gives you a flavor of the reaction from the guardians of the First Amendment. 

Here was that headline on that paper, quote: "Big Tech doesn't censor conservatives: A careful review of evidence shows that's fake news." Of course, it's fake news and Twitter was eager to make sure that you saw how fake it was. 

We just got an e-mail from a Twitter spokesman saying this. Study attached, of course, quote, "I wanted to be sure you saw a report out today from the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. It found there is no evidence to support claims of anti-conservative censorship on social media and that these claims are a form of disinformation." 

Whoa. Talk about upping the ante. Are you following this? 

There is no censorship from the tech monopolies. None. NYU has proven that. 

But if you persist in complaining about this censorship, which does not exist, you may be spreading disinformation. And keep in mind that just the other day, the Governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker announced that he was sending troops to Washington to fight disinformation. Armed soldiers, men with guns, they are fighting disinformation. 

You want to be part of that? I don't think so? Be careful. That's what the study concludes. Be careful how. 

Wow. It almost reads like a press release from Silicon Valley. Why is that? Because it is. 

This so-called academic study was in fact paid for by Big Tech. How shocked are you? 

It was funded by a man called Craig Newmark. Newmark is one of the many Silicon Valley billionaires who paid for the Joe Biden for President Campaign. Now, he is paying for this. 

One of the authors of the so-called academic study is a man called Paul Barrett. Craig Newmark is really Paul Barrett's Medici, his patron. In September, Barrett released another study on why we should be very nice to Big Tech, as well as deeply respectful and always obedient. That study was also funded by Craig Newmark, as well as by George Soros. 

Are you following how this works? Is it becoming clear? 

In 2021, billionaires fund their own studies. And in return for that investment, they get the conclusions they have paid for and the rest of us get to obey those conclusions. That's called science, ladies and gentlemen. And suddenly, it's everywhere: billionaires in charge. 

Ask yourself just for example, you could pick a lot of examples, but here's one: who has more influence over our national COVID policy? Physicians who treat COVID patients in hospitals every day? Scientists who work to find an effective treatment for the virus or Bill Gates -- who is not a physician or a researcher, but is worth more than $100 billion? 

Who has more influence? Oh, come on now. Bill Gates leads the way on COVID. He funds the most studies. Those are the rules now. 

That's why billionaire hedge fund manager, George Soros now gets to decide how our laws are enforced. It's why his fellow billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Styer gets to determine America's response to climate change. It's why Jeff Bezos who sells brightly colored garbage from China for a living gets to tell Congress what to do from the editorial page of their hometown newspaper, "The Washington Post." 

Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, so they have to listen. That's a lot of power. And it was only a matter of time before the people who wield that power decided they should control democracy itself. So they're trying. 

In the last election, 36-year-old billionaire, Mark Zuckerberg spent at least $350 million to influence who in America would vote and whose votes would be counted. 

At the same time, Facebook, his company, decided who can share certain political opinions online. We all watch this happen. And in the end, of course, those efforts had a great effect. You saw the effect. 

Facebook was pleased by that effect. Facebook has now decided to get more deeply involved in our elections, beginning with a vigorous defense of its close ally, Gavin Newsom of California. 

Now voters in California are very unhappy with Gavin Newsom, read the polls, and there's a reason. After centuries of affluence, the State of California is collapsing and many Californians are fleeing. They have no choice. They're going to Nevada, Idaho, Texas, you name it. They're leaving. 

Facebook isn't bothered by that, of course not. They're insulated from it. Facebook just wants to keep Gavin Newsom in charge of the state. Why wouldn't they? He is their friend. 

So the company recently announced it is banning ads for the effort to recall Gavin Newsom from office. Voters might not like Gavin Newsom, but Facebook likes Gavin Newsom and that's what matters. And you can see why they like Gavin Newsom, no governor in the country is more pro billionaire than Gavin Newsom is. No one is even close, and it is lifelong, this affection. 

Gavin Newsom grew up a protegee of the Getty family. The Getty family funded Newsom's business, his wine shop, his home, they even paid for his first wedding reception. Get some self-respect, Gavin Newsom. But no. 

Now that Gavin Newsom is in trouble, the richest people in the country are fighting to keep him in office. Watch this astounding clip from a comedy show the other night. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

BILL MAHER, TV SHOW HOST: We're about to have a recall in this state again. Don't do it. Don't do it. 

I have my frustrations with California. I've certainly been not shy about voicing it on this show. But Gavin Newsom, he is a smart guy. He is a good guy. 

I would love to talk to him in a room and convince him of a few things but he is -- please, don't do this. It's a stupid. 

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It is QAnon conspiracy to take over the state. That's all it is. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON: Oh, a QAnon conspiracy. That was Van Jones by the way, he works over at CNN He's a populist. He cares about the little guy, the people. 

But when the people of California decided they would like different leadership and try to use democratic means to get different leadership through a referendum, oh no, it's QAnon. It's a conspiracy. We must put it down in the name of democracy. 

That's our so-called creative class defending entrenched power on behalf of billionaires. 

Now, you'd think someone somewhere would push back against this. It's everywhere. It's so obvious, but no one in the Democratic Party dares to do that. 

The last one who tried -- just being honest here -- was Bernie Sanders and look what happened to him. Whenever you think of Sanders, we never thought much of him, but for the crime of criticizing billionaires, Sanders went out denounced by CNN as a sexist Russian operative. 

Now, just the other day, Sanders has been dismissed in the pages of what you would think would be a friendly news outlet, "The San Francisco Chronicle," no. According to that paper, Sanders is someone who quote, " ... manifests privilege, white privilege, male privilege and class privilege." Yes, he's a bigot. Take that billionaire criticizer, Bernie Sanders. 

Honestly, it's hard to feel too sorry for Sanders right now. He knew what was happening. He understood perfectly well. He didn't know this, if nothing else, Sanders knew the real divide in this country isn't race, it's not sex; the real divide is class, and Bernie Sanders used to say that out loud. 

But in the end, he was too much of a coward to criticize identity politics. It was ascendant. He wanted to ride the wave, so we played along. Big mistake. Now, inevitably, he has been denounced as privileged. 

Of course, that was going to happen. What's so interesting, and here's what you should meditate on, who is not being denounced as privileged? Who has white privilege and who doesn't have white privilege? 

Now, we know that beat cops who risk their lives for 60 grand a year have white privilege, a ton of it. We know that firemen have white privilege, along with construction workers and roofers and Uber drivers, the guys who hang drywall, anyone who doesn't take Nancy Pelosi seriously has white privilege. 

But what about Bill Gates? Does he have white privilege? When was the last time someone told you that Bill Gates had white privilege or for that matter, Jeff Bezos or George Soros or any other politically active billionaire? Never. 

It's possible the billionaires have paid for studies proving they don't have white privilege. Maybe NYU will release one of those studies soon. 

In the meantime, treat yourself. Watch Hillary Clinton approach the delicate question of privilege, in the flesh. Here she is, several years ago meeting with George Soros. Now, Soros is a man who made billions of dollars in the now infamous practice of short selling. That's been in the news recently. He was one of the pioneers of it. 

So you have a billionaire hedge fund manager who shorts national currencies. It's hard to imagine more privilege than that. But as you'll notice in the tape we're about to show you, Hillary Clinton does not scold George Soros for his white fragility. She never even mentions the lingering effects of racism and the patriarchy. No. Instead, she slobbers on George Soros. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now among the many people who have stood up and said, I cannot sit idly by and watch this happen to the country I love is George Soros. 

At this moment in time, our country needs us, and we need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts. 

So please join me in welcoming George Soros. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON: Whoa. Did you see that? Did you watch the whole tape? Their meeting, the meeting between George Soros and Hillary Clinton ends with the kiss, not with a lecture about privilege, but with a kiss and that's perfect. Of course George Soros isn't the problem, you're the problem. Quote, "We need people like George Soros," and studies prove it. 

Mike Davis runs the Internet Accountability Project. He fights censorship for a living. He has also been the victim of censorship. He joins us tonight to assess NYU's latest scholarship. 

Mike, I appreciate your coming on the show tonight. 

MIKE DAVIS, INTERNET ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT: Thank you for having me. 

CARLSON: You were banned by Twitter recently, it was a mistake, a complete mistake. For criticizing Twitter, they banned you, but it was a mistake. I'm really struck by this study. 

So this study is utterly fraudulent, it is a joke if you actually read it. It's embarrassing. But it was also funded by a tech oligarch and repeated uncritically by the rest of the media. How often does this happen? 

DAVIS: It seems to happen a lot when you are you know, dealing with these corporations trying to protect their interest. We see the Big Tech, I mean with -- we have Craigslist founder, a billionaire funding this study and then the study relies upon Facebook, Google and Twitter employees to find out whether there's conservative censorship and the people that they're not asking about conservative censorship are conservatives. 

And so of course, you know, they didn't find any censorship, just like you know, the tobacco industry didn't find any problems with tobacco and kits. I mean, it's just -- it's a -- it was a pretty amazing study. 

CARLSON: But it's even darker than that. So here you have this fraudulent study and the people who participated in it should be ashamed and leave NYU, they are a disgrace, NYU is a disgrace for putting its name on this. But then that fake study is quoted by Jeff Bezos, his newspaper as real which dares anybody to criticize it on pain of being accused of committing disinformation and punished. 

I mean, this actually becomes an Orwellian spiral, and I don't think I'm overstating it, am I? 

DAVIS: No, you're not. I mean, they just make up the news. They make up the facts here and then you're supposed to just fall in line. And if you don't, you know, what does Twitter do? What does Facebook do? What does Google do with their YouTube platform? They will silence people who disagree with it. 

CARLSON: How many institutions in Washington think tanks aren't funded directly or indirectly by the tech oligarchs, would you say? 

DAVIS: It seems like many of them are, most of them are on both the left and the right, and so this is not just a problem with Democrats in Washington, D.C. There are many Republicans in D.C. who are bought off by Big Tech, by Google, by Amazon, by Facebook, by Apple, by Twitter. 

And so this is a bipartisan problem in D.C., in the swamp, and I think that conservatives across America need to put pressure on their conservative -- their Republican Members in Congress to go on the side of everyday Americans instead of the Big Tech oligarchs. 

CARLSON: Yes, I saw Mitch McConnell jumping up and down today about QAnon or whatever, okay. I don't ever hear him say anything like that about Google ever. Am I missing it? Has he given impassioned attacks on Google defensive zone voters from Google recently that I missed? 

DAVIS: Like I said, I think that Big Tech has a hold of both parties in Washington, D.C. and it is a bipartisan problem. And every day Americans need to speak up and tell their elected Members of Congress to stop siding with Big Tech over every day Americans. 

CARLSON: Mike, I appreciate your coming on tonight. Good luck. You are fighting a lonely battle, but a worthy one. Thank you. 

DAVIS: Thank you. 

CARLSON: So voters in California want to throw off the yoke of a failed governor, a truly incompetent governor, look at the state. But our leaders tell us, oh, no, they can't because that's a QAnon conspiracy. 

They know the recall campaign is very real. That's why they're saying it. The one and only Trace Gallagher is back in primetime tonight and following this story for us, and we're grateful for that. Hey, Trace. 

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  Tucker, great to see you. 

Even supporters of Gavin Newsom admit the recall effort is picking up steam and those behind the recall campaign claimed to have 1.3 of the 1.5 million voter signatures needed to force a statewide special election in the fall. 

Even more troubling for Governor Newsom is that 36 percent of voters now support recalling him, 45 percent are still against it, but support is dwindling. Keep in mind that Newsom has recently made a flurry of bad and baffling decisions including breaking his own mandate and attending a large dinner gathering at the upscale, French Laundry restaurant; and shutting down outdoor dining despite acknowledging there was no science to back up the decision. 

Then, last week, amid a rising death rate and a still significant infection rate, Newsom abruptly dropped his stay-at-home order and allowed restaurants to reopen outdoor dining. The governor says the decision had nothing to do with the current recall movement. Watch. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): Yes, it's just complete, utter nonsense. So let's just dispense with that fundamental foundationally nonsense. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

GALLAGHER: Here's the key number. Just four months ago, Gavin Newsome had a 64 percent approval rating; among the highest in California in 50 years. Today, his approval has plummeted to 46 percent, and experts say if schools remain closed and the California vaccine rollout continues at a snail's pace, his numbers will get worse -- Tucker. 

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher for us, good to see you tonight. Thank you. 

GALLAGHER: Thank you. 

CARLSON: So if you're out of the country for a week or so, you came back to a nation under siege in a collective defensive crouch, not from China or COVID, but from a single freshman Member of Congress from the State of Georgia, who is our greatest threat, our greatest enemy who may indeed be weeks away from developing her own nuclear weapons. 

How did this happen? How did she get so dangerous? How did the rest of us get so afraid of her? Brit Hume joins us next to explain. 

Also, this is a surprise, Brett Favre joins us in just a little bit for an unexpected reason. We'll be right back. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON: Well, Donald Trump is gone as you know and you know what that means, you're now Donald Trump. We need a new Trotsky to hate or else things will fall apart. We need a new existential security threat and we have one. 

If you don't feel safe at home anymore, it's not because the murder rate is skyrocketing, or because of the rioting. According to CNN, it's because of something called QAnon, and its leader, a freshmen congresswoman from Georgia. Watch. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: That said, it's always -- it's always someone else's fault. How about we have a problem in our party, and if we don't fix the Marjorie Taylor Greenes, the insurrectionists, the conspiracy theories, all of the people are going to paint us with a broad brush, and rightfully so because what does that mean? 

That means that in some way, we are condoning their behavior. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON: Little advice for the Republican Party from Mr. Don Lemon, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to want to listen carefully. But it's not just Don Lemon, who just says what he has told, it is all of them. 

All of a sudden, they are telling us, the greatest threat to our country is someone who just arrived in Congress like 20 minutes ago and has barely even voted. Why are they saying that? Maybe there's a reason. Maybe you should think about what that reason is. 

Brit Hume is our senior political analyst here on FOX. He has watched this stuff for many, many years and he joins us tonight. Brit, thanks so much for coming on. 

So, I'm a little confused by this. This freshman Member of Congress is now the kind of touchstone for the nation? It may be inflating her importance beyond what's warranted, I'm just guessing. 

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS CHANNEL SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, I'll say, I mean, there is not the slightest evidence that she has any influence of any kind within the Republican Caucus, indeed, to the extent we know anything about what they all think of or they're embarrassed by it, because she says all kinds of really loony stuff. 

Contrast that, for example, with the with the rantings we've heard from, you know, AOC -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar and others on the Democratic side of the House of Representatives. AOC, most recently decided to text Ted Cruz had attempted to murder her. That's pretty far out there. Although, I noticed on Twitter, there's some people who believe it's true. So who knows? 

But the fact is, if you're in the Republican Party and you've got somebody who is way out there and you're going to hear a lot about that person and you're going to be asked to account for and you're going to have her face - - or name and face thrown at you again and again by the media. That's the way the game is played in Washington. 

CARLSON: But it's obvious -- it's so obviously -- because it's such a familiar tactic, a tactic, it's a ploy, right? And yet, they always fall for this. You see Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger. These, you know, are sort of well-meaning, but maybe not super sophisticated Members of Congress rising to the bait every single time. 

What do they think is going to happen? They think this Congresswoman is going to be the last person who gets singled out for group hate. You think it's not coming for them at some point? Like what do they think? 

HUME: Well, I think this particular Congresswoman, Tucker, is uniquely vulnerable to being accused of being loony. 

CARLSON: Right. 

HUME: And, you know, I guess understandable that the members of Congress would not want to associate themselves with or be associated with her. That's a function, I think, more than anything, though of the media climate in Washington, and you know, in the country, really, when you consider what the dominant media outlets do, like that silly piece you showed from the guy who runs CNN. 

So you know, Republicans get asked about this stuff all the time and you can't simply say, "I have no comment" forever. So you respond by saying, you know, I don't want anything to do with her, and everybody says Republicans distance themselves from a loony member, whatever. It's just how the game is played.  

And you have -- look, the truth is, this has been true for as long as I can remember, Tucker, Republicans operate in a media climate that is hostile to them. And you have a choice: you can rail against it, which many do and sometimes, you know, we in the media, do, in part of the media, or you can try to adjust to it. 

Republicans usually do a little of both, but sooner or later, you have to deal with it, and this is just one of the things you have to deal with. And I think, you know, I don't think Adam Kinzinger or Liz Chene have been much embroiled in the Marjorie Taylor Greene case, but yes, I think you're talking about Republicans who seem at times to side with the Democrats. That's another matter. 

CARLSON: Yes. I just think that every Republican lawmaker who wants to protect his voters should write on a card three words to respond with to reporters who ask about stuff like this, "Buzz off, shill," because that's exactly what they are. They're shills. Just my view. 
    
HUME: Well, if you do that -- the thing about that, Tucker is, I mean, that might -- you know, that might be fun to watch as a soundbite on TV, but I'm not sure it would be very effective in trying to deal with the problem. And it's a problem we've been -- we've noted for decades. And to some extent, it's a problem which we, as a news organization, have stood against. 

CARLSON: Yes. Yes. I've never been elected or anything, I never had to deal with that. Fair point. Brit Hume, great to see you. Thank you. 

HUME: Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON: This is a very sad story. It's part of a much bigger story. We haven't talked a lot about it on the show because it's just too sad, but we're going to tonight: a teenager committed suicide during the coronavirus lockdowns. Now, that teenager' mother is getting death threats because she thinks the lockdowns on the basis of a lot of evidence played a role in his suicide. 

She has literally gotten them on voicemail. We're going to play one for you after the break. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON: We don't talk about this a lot because honestly, it's too depressing, but it's completely real, so we're going to, tonight. Children are suffering under these lockdowns; in some cases, they are dying because of them. We brought you previous examples, here is another. 

In October, Lisa Mara Moore; and Moore's son Trevor Till committed suicide in the State of Illinois. Now, his mother is suing the state over her son's death. She says the lockdowns played a role in his suicide. Because she was standing up to the people who imposed those lockdowns, Lisa Moore's attorney is now getting death threats. This is one of those messages. It's awful, but we're just playing it for you because we want to know it is real. 

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This Trevor mother [bleep], he died because he's a [bleep]. I mean, holy [bleep]. If you can't stay at home for a year and [bleep] watch Netflix and chill out, then you don't deserve to live. You're part of the [bleep] problem. You're not the solution. You're the problem. 

So tell your Republican friend to go [bleep] off and die because she's a stupid [bleep]. Thank you. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON: So we had mixed feelings about playing that, obviously, but we did because again, it's real. Laura Grochocki is a lawyer representing Lisa Mara Moore and other parents. She joins us tonight. Laura, thanks so much for coming on. 

That's awful, obviously, we hope it doesn't -- that man doesn't represent many other people, but there are a lot of people, decent people, who aren't taking the effects of these lockdowns in our view seriously enough. Tell us what you think the effects have been? 

LAURA GROCHOCKI, ATTORNEY: Well, you know, since we filed this case, you know, Remember America as a small nonprofit foundation in Illinois and you know, we really wanted to file a number of lawsuits this year. And we have filed some of them, and we want to file much more because the outpouring of, you know, people calling us and begging us for help and parents calling us and asking someone to help them. 

And the stories of these parents and their kids, some kids, not just Trevor Till, but at least other -- 10 other cases in Illinois that I'm aware of kids committing suicide and eating disorders and hospitalizations over depression, and thousands and thousands of kids from low income and diverse and rural communities, not able to go to college because they're not going to be eligible for scholarships because they didn't get scouted their junior year. 

So we're getting all these stories, and we just had to act. And that's why Remember America Action did this, because no one else was doing it. We don't have a lot of resources, but we really felt that we had to stand up for them because they were begging us for help and no one was helping them and the crisis is out of control and no one wants to talk about it. 

CARLSON: So Amazon, which has benefited more than any other company from these lockdowns hasn't sent you a grant of $500 million to make this right to help? 

GROCHOCKI: I really wish they would because we really need to file -- I mean, we would have filed hundreds of lawsuits all over the country this year had we had the resources to do it and we really didn't have it, we just did what we could and we're really like -- in even in this small case, this is a small, very easy equal protection case in Illinois with these high school students. 

Governor Pritzker, you know, does not have restrictions on college and pro sports because they're rich and powerful. But all these kids had been smashed to bits by these restrictions, the cancellation of high school sports in Illinois, and based on Illinois law, we should win and we are winning, even though it's a David and Goliath battle. 

But this should have been filed months ago, and because what he is doing is just ridiculous on its face. If you look at the law, he has no rational basis for discriminating against all these kids and they've been smashed to bits in the mental health crisis, we don't even know how bad it is. 

CARLSON: God, it is sad. You should have looted Macy's, Kamala Harris would have come to your aid. 

I'm glad you're doing this. God bless you. Laura, thanks. 

GROCHOCKI: Thank you very much. 

CARLSON: So Andy Ngo is one of the very few journalists brave enough to report on Antifa right there and describe how it is destroying cities in this country. He's got a new book out called "Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy." 

In response to that book, Antifa shut down one of Portland, Oregon's most famous bookstores. It is called Powell Books. Andy Ngo has also fled the City of Portland because of death threats. 

A couple of years ago, he suffered a brain injury after Antifa rioters beat him in the street. He proceeds on unintimidated, he joins us tonight. 

Andy Ngo, thanks so much for coming on. I appreciate it. I'm glad that you wrote -- 

ANDY NGO, JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON: Tell us what you concluded after the reporting you've done and the writing of this? 

NGO: Antifa is just one manifestation of far-left domestic terrorism in the U.S. This isn't new. America has a history of far-left terrorism in the 60s and 70s. There were the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army. In the 80s, have the May 19th Communist Organization. Today, we have Antifa. 

CARLSON: What is the goal of a group like this, like, what's the endgame for Antifa and groups like it? 

NGO: So for the first time, I'm publishing in the book some primary documents from somebody who went through the membership process for Rose City Antifa, which is the Antifa cell based in Portland, and you'll see based on the curriculum that in addition to weapons training and training how to fight, there's actually a very intense radicalization process that takes a new recruit through certain incremental steps, eventually to reaching them to a point where they are brainwashed until not just killing for their cause, but also having a desire to be martyred. 

You can think of it as essentially a religious death cult, which is why when they kill people, and they launch attacks, and they bring explosives and knives and guns to their riots, they revel and celebrate in that destruction. 

CARLSON: It's horrifying and nobody has chronicled that, I don't think as carefully as you have at some cost yourself. Andy Ngo, congratulations on the book. Appreciate it. 

NGO: Thank you. 

CARLSON: So for years, they've told you don't eat cheese, the experts, the people in charge of our nutritional recommendations, they were wrong. It turns out eating cheese is one of the best things you can do for your health. Who do we go to, to affirm this scientific truth? A renowned cheese-head, NFL legend Brett Favre joins us to explain why you should eat more cheese. That's straight ahead. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON: We're learning more every year about how little our health authorities actually knew when they told us what to eat and drink. Here's another example. 

New research from Iowa State University recommends daily consumption of red wine and weekly consumption of lamb. But here's the headline. The research shows that cheese, fromage, queso is quote, "By far the most protective food against age related cognitive problems, even late into life." It's a prophylactic against Alzheimer's. So cheese doesn't just age well, cheese also helps you age well. 

As a kind of public service announcement, we've crafted a new advertisement spreading the good news about cheese. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): Are you fed up with strict and stringent diets that don't give you parmesan? To eat cheese? Well, don't be blue. You're not provolone. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice over): The show that's the sworn supporter of cheese is confirming what we've known from the start: America's favorite food is in fact nutritious. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: New studies show a steady dose of cheese will leave you shredded and reduce cognitive decline. So these people aren't crazy. They're healthy. Don't Swiss out. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON: I haven't seen that. Pretty funny. Who to talk to about cheese? Obviously, Brett Favre, world renowned cheesehead, NFL legend, he joins us tonight. Brett, we're so grateful that you're on the show to talk about cheese. Did this surprise you? 

BRETT FAVRE, NFL LEGEND: Nothing in today's world surprises me anymore. 

CARLSON: Good answer. I feel the same way. So you're obviously famously fit. We're the same age, I think we're almost exactly the same age and a lot better shape than I am. How much more cheese do you eat than the average person would you estimate? 

FAVRE: I must say I eat under the average. I love cream cheese and pepper jelly. I love goat cheese and I love pepper jack, but I don't know if I eat as much as the average Joe. I may be wrong, but that's just my observation. I love cheese though. 

CARLSON: Well, looking back on your life, would you count among your regrets not eating enough cheese now that you know the truth about cheese? 

FAVRE: Well, after today's report, of course, I would be mentally a lot sharper at this point at 51 had I eaten more cheese. 

CARLSON: I feel exactly the same way though. I'm really trying, for my health. So if you had and you're always asked to categorize things, to predict things as we move toward the Super Bowl, I'm sure people every day ask you, so I'm going to ask you. 

If you had to rate the cheeses in order of importance, what would it be? 

FAVRE: For me, cream cheese is -- it's so versatile, is number one. 

CARLSON: Yes. 

FAVRE: And pepper jack would be two, and then goat cheese which I kind of love being with cream cheese, but I'm certainly a cream cheese type of guy. 

CARLSON: I noticed a theme here, if I can just sort of put an overlay for our viewers, all the cheeses that you mentioned, are on the softer end. You're not -- parmesan wasn't even on the list -- is there a reason you like the softer cheeses? 

FAVRE: You know, I kind of like the texture more than anything. 

CARLSON: Yes. 

FAVRE: The goat cheese and the cream cheese have that different texture. 

CARLSON: Yes, they do. They do have a different texture. Little did we know that they are life-saving and life enhancing. 

Brett Favre, I can't tell you how great it was to have you on the show tonight talking about cheese. Great to see you. 

FAVRE: Hey, whatever I can do, Tucker, just let me know. 

CARLSON: Thanks, man. Good to see you. 

Well, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida stands alone for a lot of different reasons, but here's one of the more important. He is one of the only elected officials in the Republican Party who is serious about taking on Big Tech on the question of censorship. 

DeSantis has proposed a new law that makes de-platforming people for thought crimes, a crime. That's straight ahead. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON: Ron DeSantis is the Governor of Florida, the Free State and he is doing what no elected Republican we're aware of nationwide has done. He is proposing a new law that would fine Big Tech companies for censoring political candidates. 

Companies that remove a candidate for office would face $100,000.00 in fines every day until the candidate's access to the tech platform is restored. Additionally, law would require that Big Tech companies give advance notice before they ban users. 

Governor Ron DeSantis joins us tonight to explain this. Governor, thanks so much for coming on. Did we characterize that correctly what this law would do? 

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): Yes, and it's more than that. I mean, I think that we're going to do three different things. One is protect Floridians' data privacy from Big Tech, which is a huge issue. As you said, protect Big Tech from interfering in an election. And that may mean you de-platform a candidate you don't like, two guesses as to which type of candidate Big Tech wouldn't like. 

But it also means doing the algorithms in a way that will suppress stories or accelerate them to benefit a candidate that's effectively an in-kind contribution. 

And then the general protections for de-platforming users, and what we're allowing people to do is bring civil suits under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Statute and Anti-Fraud Statute and also allowing the State Attorney General to do that as well if Big Tech is not applying their terms of service in a coherent and principled way, which they almost never do. 

So we think that this is something that Floridians want protection from, and I think it'll end up being a really good first step. I mean, there's always been the question, what do you do about this? I think a lot of us have thought there was something wrong for a long time. But to just sit back and hope it gets better -- that clearly wasn't going to work, so we're leading, and I think it'll be good. 

CARLSON: No one has done anything. This is the first example of this that we have seen in this country. I know, in Eastern Europe it has been tried. Who is opposed to this? And we would love to know their names. 

DESANTIS: Well, stay tuned, Tucker. There is going to be a big fight in the legislative session. Hopefully, we'll be able to get a lot of support. I think most folks do want protections for their privacy and their data. 

CARLSON: Yes. 

DESANTIS: I think most folks want protections from being de-platformed, and it's not just being banned from Twitter or something. As we've seen, these companies can act, they can collude, they can deny you if you're a small business of payment processing, the ability to use e-mail and text. 

So what? You go to a rally that they don't like or you engage in wrong thing, and all of a sudden, your flower business is decapitated for a month because they take action. 

So I think we've gone down a dangerous path on this. This provides protections for individual Floridians, and I think it'll be very positively received, but we're buckled up, Tucker. We know that there is always fights over these things, so stay tuned. 

CARLSON: Yes, I mean, this really does set the standard for the rest of the country. It'll be fascinating to see who comes out of the woodwork to oppose it. Very quickly, if Florida, if you get this to the legislature in Florida, will it have implications for the rest of the country? 

DESANTIS: I think it will, because what we found, Tucker, is when Florida leads then other states start following. So I think you will see other legislatures follow suit. 

But I also think it's just a situation, we're very mobile society. I mean, Florida laws may actually have an effect on folks who are visiting here all the time. So I think it's going to be -- it's going to have an effect one way or another beyond our borders. 

CARLSON: Maybe there's a reason people are moving to Florida, just a guess, Governor DeSantis, we appreciate you coming on tonight. Thank you. 

DESANTIS: Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON: Pretty amazing. Finally, someone is doing something. 

We'll be back tomorrow night, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying pomposity, smugness and groupthink. We will join you tomorrow, but in the meantime, Sean Hannity takes over the reins from New York. 

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL  RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials  herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast  without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.