In a world where even the smallest disagreements can lead to arguments, violence, and even
death, two brothers tackle the difficult subjects.
Today we're going to be talking about free speech, specifically occurring at universities.
This was your idea.
You want to talk about the event, the article that gave you the push to want to discuss
this one.
Truthfully, I had done some of the research since then.
I can't remember the specifics of the article.
Maybe you could review it for us.
It was the Stanford reaction to what was it there was a sort of judge, was invited
to speak that and event, a bunch of students were there and they were heckling him
and making it general disruption.
A faculty, the speaker, the judge, asked a faculty member to if she could intervene or bring
the situation in a control.
The faculty member made some sort of comment that was somewhat disparaging towards the
judge and then Stanford had released a report about that event.
The school, the university's stance on that whole situation.
Is that a ring of L?
Yep.
I think that type of thing has been happening.
That's been happening at universities for quite some time.
I think it does seem to me and to some people that it happens.
It does happen to people from both sides of the aisle, shall we say, both conservatives and
liberals, but it does seem to be happening more to conservatives and maybe that has something
to do with the fact that for some reason, universities have swayed pretty far to left.
I think they've always leaned and I'm not talking about universities every university and
I'm not talking about, I'm talking more about the administration and faculty and especially certain
parts of the faculty seem to be leaning really far left.
There's a lot of data that I've seen recently that social sciences and certain faculty
areas of expertise that they're really leaning left and so that is kind of a tendency towards
other pushing against the other side.
One of the issues with free speech is everybody's for free speech as long as they're the ones
that are doing the speaking.
The difficulty comes when many people say, well, they shouldn't be saying that, but if I agree
with them, then we don't have a problem with free speech.
It's a problem when they're saying something that not just that we disagree with, but that
we disagree with, then we think it's dangerous.
If most of the faculty and administration is leaning left, then of course what they're going to disagree
with and think is dangerous is going to be right leaning things.
Yeah.
Let me start off by saying this is going to be a subject in which I will not be diametrically
opposed to you on the basic concept.
I do agree that there's been a general move to limiting free speech that people tend to get
recently have been particularly vocal about not wanting opinions that differ from their own at universities
and universities do tend to be more left leaning.
My unscientific opinion on that is that I think that people that are liberally minded tend
to be drawn more towards education, whereas people that are conservative minded tend to go
more towards law enforcement or business or something.
I'm not that surprised to that things are a little more liberal at the University of Europe,
but what's interesting about a lot of this canceling that's been happening at the university
is that very often it's driven by the students.
There seemed to be more motivated.
I did run across a database and it's run by a organization called Fire and Fire stands
for Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Their database is a list of not comprehensive lists, but I list of people that have been
disembited or attempts to disembite speakers that are somewhat controversial, I mean, I'd
be the right word, two universities.
Most of the disinvitational attempts have come from the left.
The one exception where there's more people on the right that are disembiting is that religious
institutions, but that's a small section of the University population, most of the people
that are doing the disembiting or attempting to disembite are left leaners.
When they talk about left or right they're talking about the population that is trying
to disembite relative to the speaker.
The speaker could be centered, but if those that are disembiting are coming from the left then
it's going to be enough disembited from the left.
That's a funny, I totally agree with all of that.
It was just funny when you said you picked kind of a conservative group except when you look at
this really conservative group and they are disembiting people from the left.
Yeah, that's true.
Religious.
But they're, you picked one conservative, brightening group and said, well, they are disembiting
people.
If you look just at them then they're going to be disembiting people from the left.
You're saying that they're the only ones on the right that are disembiting people are the only
only what.
More is coming from the left and a lot of those on the right that are doing it are
conserved religious.
A large portion of the disembitations of very large portion of disembitions are coming from
the left.
The only time I could find where at the institutions where you had a large number of right
disembitations coming from the right is when you look at religious institutions.
So if you looked at public schools, you look at secular schools, you look at religious schools
and they'll seem to be the three categories that I could find in the database.
In the public schools and in the secular schools it was almost always coming from the left
and then you look at the religious schools.
And it was coming from the right.
What's interesting is when you looked at it from the public schools and secular schools, a huge
number was coming from the left.
When you look at the religious schools, it was more coming from the right but not by the same
degree.
So they were more coming from the right but they were still a fair number coming from the left
at the religious schools as well.
So it is, I think it's fair to say that this is primarily a left problem or at least it's
occurring because there's a lot more left leaning institutions.
That's where the problems are occurred.
Yeah, I can see that.
Yeah, there's a, that guy that, the founder or one of the founders of the fire organization
that you were talking about, he wrote a book, it's Greg Lukianath and he wrote a book called
Well with Jonathan Hate, he wrote a book called The Coddling of the American Mind where
they talked a lot about this phenomenon that's happening.
They didn't attack it really from left or right leaning but they talked a lot about some of their
ideas as to why it would be happening.
And I think you kind of alluded to it earlier but they said, what's changed, administrations
have always been kind of against this stuff but students were saying, no, we want free speech,
we want the opportunity to have dialogue and everything else.
But in recent years, the students are kind of pushing back and part of it comes from the fact that
there is this idea of coddling them, there's people get upset and the administration is
trying to say, well, you shouldn't have to suffer through this.
We don't want you to have to feel like you're unsafe because somebody is saying something
that you disagree with, find a safe space or we won't let them come those types of things.
I don't know exactly how the shift has occurred but it does seem like there is much more concern
about protecting people from the idea of violence speech or I don't know, just finding
something that's going to trigger them or hurt them or something like that.
Yeah.
I think the safety is a common theme when people talk about this imitation and I think it's
because people, as you were just saying, it can be used as a way to try and when people are
worried about actual physical violence, well, obviously they're safe to use a concern.
But now they've taken that label and they've sort of brought in the concept to say, I feel
unsafe because I don't like what this person is saying.
So we sort of change the definition of what it means to feel safe or to feel threatened.
I think it originated with maybe some of the, maybe for example, some of the racist people
that were out there where racist some racists might go to a degree of turning towards violence
but I don't think it's fair to say that all racists would.
And so someone might say, well, they could turn towards violence and so that makes me feel
uncomfortable or maybe just an emotional safety that I talk about.
But I don't really know what their forces and excuse.
Yeah.
I think there's, yeah, it's funny because, yeah, the two aspects that you look at is the stress
that you put on people are going to force people to kill themselves or to suffer depression
or something else.
And so we're trying to protect them from that.
But I think the other side of it that you've been talking about as well is pretty interesting.
This idea that we could incite people to violence.
And what is really, I don't know, enough of an incitement to violence.
And we've had some discussions, you know, you and I in the past where this has come up.
One that comes to mind is Elon Musk's comments about your wrath.
When your wrath, who was the former head of, what was it, health and safety or something
it?
At Twitter.
And then we were talking about, well, the old himself had said some things in 2017 about
Maga voters, people that voted for Trump or racist and Nazis, things like that.
And then Trump had made some comments that some people attributed to, well, they said,
well, this caused that some threats to Joel's safety, maybe even in his life.
And so he was Elon Musk responsible.
And was he more responsible because he has more of a following.
So you can say some things, if nobody's really listening to you, but you can say less things
if somebody is listening, if you have a ton of followers or a bigger platform shall we say.
But that is a, and I think that's part of what we're talking about here.
And maybe we should talk about both those issues.
One is, well, listen, if somebody says something that you disagree with, how seriously should
we take that?
And there's all sorts of examples that we could give.
Well, if we have some debate on campus or somebody comes to speak to we allow them to speak,
even if it offends some of the people that some of the students on campus.
But then, that's different than if somebody were kind of pounding me, they said they found
out where I lived, or follow me to work, and we're picking me as if I went to
work because they hated some of the things that I stood for that I'd written online, is that allowed?
And then, we had these Supreme Court justices or politicians that people were confronting
them in restaurants and telling them how terrible they were because they disagree with their
policies.
And all of these things, there's a lot of gray area there, where first we say, hey, just second
up, I mean, don't worry about it when somebody says something bad.
But then, if somebody's following you around, like how much of that do we allow legally?
And then, morally, or what should we, do we just disagree with people?
Should we pass laws of that?
And I think those are, that where it becomes really difficult.
Absolutely.
And of course, it's not always a first amendment issue.
First amendment would only apply to public universities.
But I do think that looking at the first amendment, the freedom of speech, gives us a good
framework around what maybe should be allowed or should not be allowed.
Of course, if you are a private institution, a private university, you can do it every
one.
You make your own rules.
But it does give a good framing of the conversation around freedom of speech.
And in the first amendment, there are a couple categories that are not protected speech,
identity, incitement, defamation, fraud, fighting words, true threats, speech that's integral
to criminal conduct and child pornography.
And of course, not all that applies to what we're talking about here, but hate speech that
does not include incitement to violence, defamation, fighting words, or true threats, is protected
speech under the first amendment.
So I can speak nasty words about you.
And as long as I don't do any of those categories.
But what you're referring to is the incitement to violence versus an implied incitement to violence.
And then there's something that will take it a little further.
Even one.
Well, you said, versus an implied incitement to violence.
I mean, some people would say, well, that's an incitement to violence.
And other people would say, no, it's not.
I mean, exactly.
But what you had accused and you and others, I guess, had accused Elon Musk of inciting violence
against Yol Roth.
And I don't want to split hairs, or maybe I don't want to get too focused on one particular
instance of it.
But it is a good example of people he quoted from the doctoral thesis that Yol Roth that was
published on line, he quoted what he had said.
So if he's quoting what he said, is that an incitement to violence?
Now, I looked back and I don't definitely don't want to litigate this one on that podcast right
now.
But if you think about the words that Donald Trump said on January 6th, there's not really an
incitement to violence there.
Some people read it that way though.
You know, he said certain things, well, we're going to go show them, we're going to go
fight and we're going to show them what it means to be brave or something like that.
You never said, let's go storm the capital, let's break down the doors.
So some people say, but some people read it a different way and read that speech and say,
yes, that wasn't incitement to violence or when he saw that it was building a piece should have
done more to reduce the violence.
But that is such a tricky place to be because in all of those cases, I think you have reasonable
people on both sides that are saying, yep, it wasn't incitement or no, it wasn't.
And so violence is a really, there's a lot of gray area there for sure.
Somebody kidding, you know, sometimes, you know, there were some politicians for example,
Maxine Waters in Camila Harris and even Joe Biden that made comments about the riots over
I forget what year it was 2020 or something when the black lives matter riots and they were
saying, these people are upset.
Of course, they're going to do their doing good things.
They should go, or Maxine Waters said, they should go get in the politicians faces and people would
say, well, that's an incitement to violence.
Like he was, no, that's free speech.
She was just saying that they should go express themselves.
You know, it's a real gray area there.
And I think you could find politicians and people on the wall stripes of all political beliefs
that have said things that some people would say, that was an incitement to violence.
And other people would say, no, no, that was not.
That was just them speaking their mind.
Right.
And so to bring all that back to universities in particular, the Stanford situation was on the
one hand, you know, you have a private university where they have a little more freedom.
But they were saying, you know, that they felt the students and the faculty had behaved poorly
and behaved badly for their guest speaker.
And as you and I had briefly discussed, when we decided we were going to talk about this,
that there has been over the last couple of years a trend towards really limiting what sort of
speech was showing up on some of these campuses.
And do you take a look at that tweet that I sent you this morning?
No, I was interesting.
Yeah, so the Wayne State University, which I assume is a public university because it's
a state that a professor there had made some pretty clear violent, is it incitement to violence?
It kind of sounds like it.
What do you say?
I think it's far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic or transphobic speaker than it is
to shout them down.
Now I guess he isn't explicitly saying to do the thing, but you could see if you're saying,
if you're going to do one, maybe do the other instead, which is pretty strong.
And so then the university gave the information to the local law enforcement and I guess the
university is waiting to see how the law enforcement reacts before the university decides how
they're going to react to it.
But that's a public university.
And a public university is more, I guess, should be more strictly following the first amendment
guidelines than a pipeline.
Yeah, that's a difficult thing because I'm going to private university.
There's all these conflicting incentives or motivations or something like that because even
out of public, yeah, public university, you still have to represent the university.
So it's not as if, oh, I work at a public university so I could say whatever I want.
And do they, does the public university say, well, if we have a professor who is a Nazi,
or are you going to allow that?
I mean, on the one hand, you, and what becomes so difficult, too, is, you know, many times they,
at a university, you do want, how would you say this, differing viewpoints.
You want a heterogeneous faculty administration to some degree to where you can have people
that espouse different viewpoints.
So people just don't go to a university and get only one way of looking at the world.
I think it's really healthy to look at things from different perspectives.
But yeah, that one, that's a difficult place for them to be.
For him to say it's admirable to kill a racist to homophobic,
and racist to homophobic or transphobic speaker.
I mean, yeah, that to me steps over the line, I don't care if it's a public university or private.
I think that guy should be, if not suspended or fired, at least severely,
he'd be reprimanded.
So I can incitement the violence to me.
Yeah, yeah, I would agree with that one.
I would agree.
But I mean, that's an extreme case.
I think what I have more problems with is when, yeah, this shouting down, like the first
article that we looked at, where they had this, a conservative judge, a judge coming.
And instead of letting him talk and then disputing it or having another speaker come and refute some
of his points or have some sort of a ravutal people shouting him down.
And the administrators taking part in that and encouraging them to not let him speak.
That was more surprising to me.
I don't, I think there's probably less incitement to violence of the kind that this guy, and
maybe he wasn't really thinking about he said, I mean, geez, is he really willing to
go out and kill people who he disagrees with?
I mean, sometimes people just say stuff.
I would hope he's not like figuring out ways to try to kill those speakers.
He certainly hasn't killed anybody yet.
So it may just be as far as we know, but it may just be talk.
He's just talking big, like people in the basketball court talking big.
And then the second that somebody wants to fight like, whoa, whoa, we're just playing a game here.
But I think there's probably fewer people calling for murders than there are people that
are in the universities restricting the free flow of ideas and information.
And that's what is disturbing is that we are getting to the point where we can't have
this open discussion.
Yeah.
And I think you brought really good point, which is that the universities really should
be trying to expose people to as much information.
It says many different views as possible.
And especially for university that claims to be a liberal art university because one of the things
that they will require is that you must take courses from a broad range of classes because
they feel that they well rounded student is a well rounded student is the goal.
And so if you're going to require people to take a psychology class and a sociology class
and a math class and a science class, why are you not requiring them to also be exposed to liberal
you points and conservative viewpoints?
And maybe even you point to disagree with, maybe you point to strongly disagree with and to be
able to quietly hear those points without just trying to drown out the speaker.
Yeah, I would agree.
And I think there's a number of, you know, the benefits that come from that are just so there's
so many of them.
First of all, if you spend your whole life thinking one way about things, you know, later
on in life, you're not prepared to defend that viewpoint.
You might be more easily swayed because, oh, there are people that think a different way.
You know, it would allow people to further strengthen their own points of view, the way they
think about things because they've thought about it from all viewpoints.
I think it also helps people to be more accepting of others because you see, well, oh,
there are reasonable people that think in ways that are different from me.
And they make some good points that sometimes, you know, it's not so cut and dry as we, as we,
if we only see one way, if we only have, see one point of view, we don't realize, well, you
know, maybe my argument is we can some areas or I should be more accepting of exceptions
to the rule, those types of things.
So I think it's, you know, it allows people to be more prepared for a society where they
can accept even those people that disagree with them.
But if we look at where we are now, people on the right are so angry and hateful towards people
on the left and vice versa, you know, maybe if we could have some of these different viewpoints,
we could see that.
Man, we're all pretty similar.
And maybe we see things differently, but who knows who's right many times, you know, probably
sometimes you're right and sometimes I am.
And we should be more that, would probably breed some humility in all of this discourse.
Yeah, and I do think that anytime you're hearing some else's opinion, you should try and put
your own opinion aside and hear it with an open mind.
In a perfect world, that's what happened.
Most of us are really listening to some else's opinion and trying to figure out which of my
opinions is going to be able to undermine that opinion.
So even if these students at universities are hearing someone they disagree with, at the very least,
listen in order to sharpen your own opinion.
And at the very best, actually be receptive to what the opinions that you're hearing because
you might actually learn something and it could be a value to you.
Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything that you said.
I think I think there's not enough willingness to be around people that we disagree with, which
seems like we've gotten to a state lately where if we disagree, I can't associate with
you in any way whatsoever.
Now I can understand that in the extreme, if I'm not saying that a Jewish person should go out
and live friendly with an antisent, a aggressive antisemite side by side, without any
fences or anything like that.
But outside of those extremes, I really think that we have gotten to the point where minor differences
are now reasons to dissociate with people.
Yeah, yeah, that idea that speech can be violence.
I disagree with that pretty much.
I mean, I guess, I would disagree certainly in the way that it's that people enforce that now.
So for example, somebody coming to speak and then people shouting and shouting him or
heard down so they don't get a chance to present their point of view.
I think is wrong in the university.
I think there could be times where, hey, you just the university could step in and say, listen,
you can't just be counting this.
If there's a particular student that they disagree with, they're just falling them around and harassing
him or harassment is different than accepting other viewpoints where allowing them a platform
even.
I think almost all viewpoints should be allowed on these universities.
And maybe that's a good way to distinguish between what is allowed and what isn't.
If it's harassment, meaning you're just not leaving somebody alone or not allowing somebody
to speak, that should not be allowed.
But allowing somebody to espouse a view point or propose to speak on a view point that you disagree
with and even that you consider hateful is not a good and never reason to censor somebody
or not allow them their chance to speak.
And to go back to a point that I debated earlier, but kind of fleshing it out a little bit,
if we use racism as an example, there are racists that, of course, are hoping and looking
for reasons to impose violence on other people.
And then from that extreme level, there are degrees of racism.
It goes to just, I don't want to say, I disagree with all racism, I think all racism is bad,
I get it out there.
But at the same time, there are degrees of racism that are not as strong, that are not in
pending violence within a someone's racist perspective.
And so I don't think having a racist view is necessarily an incitement to violence.
Go back to the first amendment, there is no threat in racism in and of itself.
There can be, but it's not intrinsic.
It's not within the racist belief.
And with any other speech that is any other, any other imposed stereotype, any other belief that's
about a particular piece, if I have the belief that if I have the belief that women should
only be in the house that they shouldn't be at working, that is not a violent belief.
Now some women may feel that that's put to restraint on them, but my belief doesn't.
If I somehow act in a way where I impose that belief, then there isn't action.
But the word itself is not actionable.
Yeah, Brian, I was reading in preparation for this.
I read about a bit about the ACLU and they seem to have changed course in the last few years.
But in the 70s, they, they caught the attention of a lot of people and a lot of people were very
angry with them because they defended the right of the neo-nazzi party to, I guess, protest or
to have an exhibition in Skokil and Owe.
One of the reasons that they fought for them was because they said, well, listen, even if we disagree
with somebody's viewpoint, they still need to be allowed to espouse that viewpoint to speak about
it, to put it out there if they want to.
What it happened was, and what, this is what makes it so interesting, sorry, I just wanted
to let it up.
The Nazi party had gone to try to, what would you call it, not protest, but they put on it
to march or whatever on this particular park in Illinois.
And the county came back and said, well, you need to get a permit and in order to have the permit,
you need a $250,000 bond.
And they didn't have, they're just a small organization.
And there was another civil rights organization at the same time was trying to do the same thing.
So they said, at first they both were marching in the park and then they started to get really
upset with each other.
Police often had to be called and they said, we're tired of dealing with this.
Okay, you both needed $250,000 bond.
Well, they both went to the ACLU and said, well, first the civil rights people went to the ACLU
and said, hey, could you help us with this?
Oh, of course, yeah, this is what we do in the South to make sure the people could vote or
could march for civil rights for black people.
And so they said, yeah, of course, we'll take it.
It will take it all the way to Supreme Court if we need to.
And then the Nazi party came and they said, that's the same thing.
And they're like, well, we're already doing that.
And you can't be added to the same case.
They're not going to do two cases.
So just don't worry about it.
We're taking care of it.
But then the Nazi party said that they wanted to go all throughout Illinois doing this, marching.
And there was one town that came back and said, nope, we don't want you to be here because they
had a number of Holocaust survivors.
And they were like, this is going to be too painful to the Holocaust survivors.
So they said they were going to go into school.
Of course, that kind of triggered them.
And they said, yep, okay, we're going to scokey where these Holocaust survivors are because
they don't want us there.
And then they had to take the case to the ACLU, the ACLU took it and said, yep, everybody has
the right to do this.
Because if everybody doesn't have the right to do it, then people fighting for civil liberties,
you don't have the right to do it.
In the same way that we protected so that if we have a problem with black people being allowed
to vote or to write on buses or whatever else, we have to make sure that that right to at
least march or speak about these things is allowed for everybody.
That right is too important.
So we have to protect the rights of the neo-Nazi's to do this just like we protect the
rights of the civil liberties people to do that.
I think that's awesome that the ACLU in the day would go out and defend the right of the
Nazis to be able to march.
Wouldn't it be amazing if they would do that today?
I can't imagine it though.
Maybe it's a process.
Yeah.
But so the interesting way to put it's awesome that they would defend the rights of the Nazis.
Just the fact that they would defend the right of all of us.
That that right is a universal right in our country because of because of the first amendment.
It's not awesome.
I think they probably, it's not awesome in the sense that they probably hated that they had to
do it.
And we all probably hate that they have to do it.
But we look at the bigger picture and say we have to protect that right even for those
viewpoints that are so objectionable like the neo-Nazi's platform.
We have to protect that even for them because that protects it for all of us.
Because we don't know when we're going to be the minority.
We can't just say, well, I disagree with what they say.
So I don't want them to say it.
They can say whatever they want.
Now if they're harassing people, we can put some rules in place about that.
But they have the right to speak in public places and say what they want.
Yeah.
And no one's going to have an argument about whether a mother Teresa should be able to go
and speak in public or some great humanitarian or tailor swift.
I'm not saying those two of the same.
I'm not saying great humanitarian leader, like Taylor Swift.
So we can communicate a tearing leader or tailor swift.
No one's going to have a real problem with that.
But where it challenges us is really where we need to look at and decide what are the rules
that it does a rule apply to people we like and people we don't like or just the people we like.
And the important rules are universally applied to everybody.
Yeah.
And maybe a good rule of thumb is this kind of what I took from the guy that was leading the
ACLU all those years when they were fighting in Illinois and other places.
A good rule of thumb is many times we say, well, we shouldn't allow this person to speak
here and they have this viewpoint.
Well, then spin it around and say, well, what if we were restricting my right to take the opposing
viewpoint?
So if we're talking about gay marriage or civil rights or whatever, if somebody's coming and
we disagree with them because they're talking about trans rights and they, we think that's
hate speech against trans rights or something.
Well, just remember if we try to restrict them from speaking, what if somebody restricted
me from having my viewpoint, which is the opposing viewpoint of that?
Okay, well, then we've got to let them have their saying.
Yeah.
And of course, as we said in the beginning, there are special rules when you have a private institution
in the same way a business, a business is not beholden to the first amendment.
It's because it's privately owned.
And so the rules that might apply publicly don't always apply privately.
And it's also important that people recognize the difference between the two.
The first amendment can be a good guideline in certain situations, but it doesn't apply.
The first amendment applies to the government limiting or supporting speech.
Yeah, and different business is just a handle that differently.
I mean, I think you and I've talked about this before.
If you're talking about a restaurant, well, listen, let's not come here and have people at
the different tables arguing about politics.
Just keep it to yourself.
We're going to have to actually, but if we're at a university, that's probably a place where
people should be talking about these things.
But there's a time in a place even at the university, as long as it's applied fairly and equally.
And then social media, well, that's an open platform.
You can block people if you want.
We're not going to have incitement to violence or hate speech.
I do, I think Twitter and all these Facebook and everybody have their rules in place.
And they should tend more than other places towards having an opportunity.
It's an open form where there's an opportunity where people, even if we disagree with them, can
put forth their viewpoints.
We can block them and not listen to them.
That's fine.
We cannot go to the speech, whatever.
But social media should be a place where more than not, we should be allowing, it should be closer
to the government's implementation of the first amendment than other places.
Now we're still going to, it's not the same thing.
They're not the federal government.
And they do want to keep people safe or whatever.
But so they can restrict more than maybe other places would.
But it should be closer to an open forum than some of these other situations.
For sure.
And so we're going to leave it there because we're out of time.
Yeah, I thought we have a little more disagreement.
I knew we'd be somewhat aligned, but a little bit more.
Next week, we're going to talk about banning, we're going to stick with the freedom of speech
or concept and talk about the banning of books and other material libraries and schools.
Okay.
Be prepared.
All right.
Let's go.
It's good.
Back to later.
See you.
Then.
We hope you learned something in this episode of Brother Vs.
Brother, a podcast about difficult conversations.
We also hope that you enjoyed it enough to subscribe to the podcast.
You can help us by spreading the word.
Share this episode on your favorite social media so that others will have an opportunity to experience
it as well.
You can also support us by donating through Patreon.
This information and more can be found on our website, broconvo.com and on our various social
media accounts.
Thank you.
[BLANK_AUDIO]