Speaker 1: 0:00

Hi, my name is Juliet[inaudible] and this is my podcast. The great end to date. This podcast is brought to you by the center for growth and opportunity at Utah state university. To learn more, visit www.thecgo.org.

Speaker 2: 0:38

[inaudible].

Speaker 1: 0:40

Hi, welcome back. It is my great pleasure to welcome Shoshana Wiseman or Senator Shoshana as many call her who is a senior manager of digital communications and a policy fellow at R street. She works on occupational licensing reform, social media, regulatory policy, section two 30 and all of that good stuff. She has a huge presence on Twitter, and I've heard her introduced as quote, the bad boy entertainment of the regulator death row. Unquote, if you live in DC and you ask people, if they know Shoshana, you'll soon. Find out that everyone knows her and everyone loves her. The words that frequently come up. When you ask about her are entertaining sloths and best rainbow hair in town. Welcome Shoshana.

Speaker 3: 1:24

Oh my gosh. Who said those things? I never hear stuff like even I hear stuff like that, but thank you. Like, Oh my God. Also send those people my love

Speaker 1: 1:32

So sweet. I definitely will. Um, so jumping right in, what is the most important thing that people, my age or in my generation should know that we don't. So

Speaker 3: 1:43

Are you thinking from policy or are you thinking like personal or just like living your best life?

Speaker 1: 1:49

Anything, whatever you think is best. Oh, man.

Speaker 3: 1:52

I mean, I think that it's, um, I think here's one thing that's really important. Like if you're very type a and like OCD about everything and always concerned how people see you comment down, like no, the foods are good instincts that'll serve you well, just to like, be very aware of stuff, but you don't need to freak out so much about it, but if you're very typee and you don't think about those things at all, do think about them. I think we all kind of like need to be our own devil's advocate and like moderate ourselves, because I'm very much to type a like OCD, like, Oh my gosh, what are people thinking about me and all that. And now I'm like, okay, no one cares in like, in like a good way, like things are chill, but I know some type B people who, and I'm like, how are you doing this? And not thinking like, people are going to be like, what the heck? So be your own best devil's advocate.

Speaker 1: 2:38

That's really good advice. And I mean, while you think people don't care, they also think you're the best rainbow hair in town. So really you are, you're giving a good impression and you're doing all the right things.

Speaker 3: 2:50

Thank you. But you know what, it's funny. I like, I got into politics and worry that the hair would turn people off and it did at first, but in DC, like I started asking my boss, like, can I die part of my hair again? And they're like, we don't care. And then I'm like, you and I die all of it. And like, I was like, well, you know, if this hurts my career, I'll, I'll dye it back. I'll see. But people loved it. And I'm like, Oh, so you like me? Like, I can just be me. And like, you guys are cool. And I don't think people realize like, just being yourself is a really positive thing sometimes for your career too.

Speaker 1: 3:22

That is a really good thing to think in mind, to think in mind what to keep in mind. I silly. Okay. So kind of moving well kind of in that direction. So on Twitter where people feel like they have to either be the smartest in the room or, or, and the meanest in the room in order to get followers, your approach is radically different, which is super inspiring. And it's great. You have no problem expressing your undying admiration for people. And so sometimes even public figures, for example, your massive intellectual crush on justice, Don Willett among other things, you've called him a judicial unicorn. And you've written that quote, Don Willett is the Twitter conservative judge America has been waiting for. And quote, can you tell us why you think this judge who by the way, seems to share your taste for corny jokes is so great and what's his judicial philosophy.

Speaker 3: 4:23

Yeah. So he's amazing. And I love him and he is my angel, but yeah, it's like, I don't know. People yell at public figures all day and there's something wrong with that. Like you should sometimes I, I do it too, but people don't take the time to like be nice and like being nice is how you get ahead. And not even just from like a utility standpoint, but like, if you have positive feelings about someone, it makes them feel better knowing it. And like, then they'll wanna work with you knowing like, Oh, they're chill, you know, like, that's good. So, um, so I think thinking about it that way, it's just really important. Um, with Willard in particular, um, I remember, uh, bonding over memes with him. Gosh, back in like 2013, I didn't know his judicial philosophy at the time. Um, but I was like, Oh, this is, he's a nice guy. He's funny. Um, so we became friendly. I met him at the Federalist society convention, I think for the first time back in 2014. Um, and I was like, Oh my gosh, like he's here. And like, I was so excited, like, Oh, the super nice guy. And he was just so down to earth and kind, and we stayed friends to this day. Um, but we share the same judicial philosophy, which I found out in 2014 when he had this don't thread on me, eyebrow threading case, which was about like saying that you can't just ban eyebrow threading for no reason, like a state, like basically, um, on a numerated rights or rights rights that aren't written down our rights. But so many times the courts just pretend like, Oh, um, if, um, if the rights are like in the bill of rights and a couple of other rights for no reason we decide are super important, they get protection the rest. Well, there has, as long as there are some potential reason called rational basis that the government have regulated this thing, we don't need it to prove it. We just need it to pretend. So you basically encourage the government to lie and it's crap. It's really it's crap. And it's not a theory that I think is like the founders intended. I don't think it's how things are supposed to work. Um, if each branch is supposed to be a check on one another, but he liked me. He believes that judges are supposed to say, Hey, you know, why do you implement this? Let's say there was an epidemic of harm with eyebrows threading that was unlicensed, you know, totally go for it. Like if the government's actually fixing a constitutional problem with a constitutional means, but they just sometimes outlaw professions without licenses for no reason, no harm, no evidence of harm. And he's like, Hey, this is, we're not doing this. Like, there's no reason you can, you, uh, the government has to ban eyebrows running without a license. So I was reading it and I'm like, Oh, he's with me. And I was so excited. I, and I remember messaging him being like, Oh my gosh, I didn't know you were judicial engagement proponent, which is what the theories called. So I was just over the moon that not only was he fun and kind nice and silly, but like we really agreed intellectually. So I was just so, so happy. Um, and he, he challenges a lot of norms and the judiciary from like his Twitter, which unfortunately he doesn't have any more. I think he's trying to keep the peace with colleagues and like, you know, not trying to be the center of attention all the time. Um, unfortunately, and now when he's a fifth circuit judge, it's a little bit harder than when he was a Supreme court judge, um, in Texas, but now a lot of judges tweet because of him. And like, he just has such a positive impact on so many people who he mentors and it's just kind too. And like, he's just an all around wonderful person. He loves his family. Like, I know that's a dorky thing to say and all politicians too or whatever, but, um, you know, I'll be at conferences and then he'll step outside to like FaceTime with his family. And it's so sweet. Um, he always checks in on me and like other people he's friends with, he's just a really good guy. And like, you know, not all my intellectual heroes are going to be great people, but he in particular ends and whether it's him or other people who I think really highly of, I want to share with the world. Here's why I think so highly of this person, um, we don't share our positive stuff enough with each other. Um, and sure. I yell and I make fun of people and stuff, but like, you know, sharing positive stuff is super, super underrated and badly needed in an era like now

Speaker 1: 8:17

That's, I don't know. That's so cool. I've just been like smiling so hard this whole time because it's so it's cute. I feel like now I'm like have some sort of crush on this guy. Like, I don't know that I agree with that philosophy. It makes sense. I feel like rationally thinking. Yes. If you don't have any reason you don't have any proof, it, why would you do I feel like there's no basis for that legislation to come into play. So kind of going, um, in the direction of Supreme court and judicial things I read on your personal page that you've turned every past Supreme court confirmation hearing into sortable and searchable data. So can you explain why you did this and why it's so important?

Speaker 3: 9:13

It's really bad. Um, this is probably gonna be the nerdiest thing I did. Uh it's I, I'm not, I'm good. I'm very good at Excel, but I'm not a master. So it took me about 200 hours in fairness, a lot of that with cleaning the data. Uh, the reason though was because, like I said, I care about under numerated rights and, um, that they're codified in the ninth and 14th amendments. So I kinda wanted to see, like, I wonder how often they've been mentioned in Supreme court confirmation hearings. And I'm like, I don't want to have to go back and forth between all these PDF documents, riddled with errors. I'm like, how about I agree to database? So like other researchers can use it too. So, because I just kind of wanted to know something. I spent 200 hours of my free time doing that. Um, I learned a lot about the confirmation hearings about senators in the past, cleaning the data. Um, and there's just so much you can learn. I mean, and things used to be a lot less partisan, honestly. And I know that's a cliche to say, and I think sometimes that feeling is, um, is wrong when people think, Oh, it was so much better in the past, but in this case, you really see in the past, like, you know, Democrats would say nice things about Republican nominees and the reverse. And like, they would mean it. Like they, they would grill them and they would ask them questions, but they didn't go crazy. Like they do today. They didn't try to make it like a media spectacle. Um, and it was really interesting to watch that and to watch that change over time, largely with like the Bush and Obama years, that's when you really, really started to see a change. And I know there was like stuff with Bork and, um, you know, there was definitely some, um, some stuff in his hearing that I didn't feel comfortable with, but high honestly think things are so much worse today, but it's kind of interesting watching too. Um, like a lot of senators now will have been confirming judges or not confirming judges on, um, the Supreme court for decades. So seeing the way they've changed what their questions are changed, who asks what it used to be mostly Democrats asking about under numerated rights in these days, it's largely Republicans. Um, and it's just kind of interesting to watch that there's, there's just a ton of stuff you can learn. You can search for like any issue, any speaker, any chairman, and kind of compare everything. Um, so I just sometimes use it for fun, but it's really, like, I honestly learned a lot just going through cleaning and putting together the data, both in Excel, but also like I learned a lot about the Senate and the justices. So I think sometimes just listening and like watching and reading history is really important. We don't have enough of those quiet moments now, and I don't think society encourages it so much, but quiet research is super, super underrated. Um, and for me, just for personal gratification,

Speaker 1: 11:44

That's, I don't know. It's so cool. Just to think that all of that can be turned into numbers, something else that makes sense. If you have time to exactly. Go back and look at all of it, which does seem like a worthwhile way to spend your time because observing how they act, how they interact with each other. I, that shift is interesting. It's I think it's cool that you did that. Um,

Speaker 3: 12:12

Oh, thank you. It's not cool. It's nerdy, but it's cool. I like doing this kind of stuff. Um, I don't know. I also just don't like, uh, having limits. So even if I don't know something, I'll often teach myself how to do something, just because I want to know how to do stuff. And a lot of times to learn something in some spot and like learn how to apply that to another spot. So, um, I dunno, it's fun. Um, also because I'm a digital nerd and Supreme court nerd and policy nerd, it was kind of cool to marry all of my nerdiness

Speaker 1: 12:41

As a nerd. I appreciate that. I want to talk to you about your big fight of the moment, the intense and bi-partisan call to repeal section two 30. I did an entire episode on section two 30 with Matt Feeney at Cato about sex. Yeah, he is great. He's I learned so much and I think everyone learned so much, but can you remind us what section two 30 is and why it's in the eye of the storm right now?

Speaker 3: 13:13

So all section two 30 says is that if someone posts on someone else's thing, the person whose thing they posted on, isn't liable, the person who, who said the thing is already liable and near the only one who's liable. So if I tweet something illegal on Twitter, um, you could Sue me if it related to you. Um, if Twitter posts a Facebook comment like on Facebook, Twitter is liable because it's Twitter's content. Um, I have Twitter posts, a warning label on Trump's tweet. Twitter is still liable. And if, uh, someone at Facebook posts a comment on the New York times, op-ed page like a comment underneath, um, Facebook is liable. So it always, it maintains what we have, that the speaker's liable, the place where they post isn't liable. Um, it's simple enough and it's how it, things should work because like, you know, if you're a small platform, you probably don't have resources to moderate heavily, um, and P and especially like newer platforms, don't have those kinds of resources. And sometimes people post awful things. Um, so they, you know, if they post something illegal, the platform shouldn't be liable because it doesn't know what's there. And even if, you know, it's there, it's not easy to tell if something's illegal, you consider it that like things, you know, that, that stuff goes through courts. Um, if it's liable, if it's, um, some other illegal kind of content or court decides some guy moderating website is not a judge and is not a court, he doesn't know how to do that kind of stuff. Um, and sometimes judges will disagree. So it's not fair to put that liability on a platform, um, for doing something just Herculean. Like that's, that's insane. Um, so that, that's one of the things. And then even Facebook and Twitter, yeah. They have tons and tons of stuff. They also have hundreds and hundreds of millions of posts. There's no way they can look at everything and get everything right. Every time. And before we had two 30 courts basically said, Hey, if you don't moderate, that's cool. You're you, there's no way you have the knowledge of the content. So you're not liable. But if you try to keep your website family-friendly and you get rid of crap on it, um, and then there's some crap that you miss while you're trying to get rid of it, you're liable for it because we assume you saw it that's that doesn't make any sense. Um, the people doing the right thing get punished, um, and beyond that, just like everyone has different needs. All trails is a platform I love where users it's like Wikipedia for hiking basically. And there's also common. So it's all user content. Um, and sometimes I'll go hiking and I'll check, Hey, are there bears out today? And like, in the comments, there'll be like a bear chase me. And I'm like, okay, I'm renting some bear spray. Like that's really helpful. And that means I don't die in the woods that day. Um, on Zoc doc, you can review doctors. And like, honestly, I, I have tons of diseases. And for years I could not find good doctors who believe me, who would try things with me, who like cared, but now I can just go look up reviews. And they'll say like, Hey, this doctor didn't listen. Or the software was great. We've worked through everything. They've been trying different treatments. I feel listened to. And I'm like, okay. Um, and because of that, I get way better doctors. I spend way less money. Um, and doctors are incentivized to want to do the right thing and to be helpful. Um, and then I recommend those doctors. So other people can find them. Um, but without two-thirty online reviews have heckler's veto because all a doctor has to say, is that liable? Take it down. Or we'll Sue you, they'll take it down and it's not worth it. So all reviews will be positive or fake. Um, TripAdvisor said that, like, they have to remove one out of every 20 comments and they have millions and millions and millions, millions of con of comments. Um, so let's just like a lot to do. And it's not, we can't expect perfection, especially because oftentimes two different moderators will disagree with one another. So two 30 means that our free speech can work online. And that if we don't like one platform, we just go to another. The reason that it's been targeted largely is because of Donald Trump. Um, I think it's not the only reason, but he's a big reason. Um, he's actually used to 30 as a defense in the past, uh, for legal cases against him. Um, which is really funny, but he was basically mad that people were saying mean things about them online and that like, he didn't get to keep all of his content up, um, and content supporting him up. That's the whole reason that that all started and then conservatives wanted his support. So then they went after two 30, a lot of them don't understand it or they know better, and it's not accurate, or they're trying to solve something that isn't a problem, or that's actually a problem with the first amendment in many cases, um, not liking moderation practices. Isn't is a first amendment issue. Like you don't like the way people are handling speech and it's their right to, to handle that speech and the way they want, um, on the right, they want to compel speech the left. They want them to take more speech down. Um, sometimes there's a little crossover, but it's really dangerous. We shouldn't have a government telling us like what, um, what speech they like. And don't like, um, it's really, really dangerous to get into this. Um, and hearings lately. I've been really, really awful. I mean, for the past year, but now they're going after cable companies too. And it's like, look, if you're going to do this towards everyone, it's clearly not about bad stuff online. It's about speech you don't like, and that's dangerous.

Speaker 1: 18:18

Yeah. I mean, I think your examples about things that are available because of section two 30, like that website for doctors and the hiking website, that that's kind of things that people don't understand, because often when it's explained you don't get examples. And so you don't know what you gain from it. You only hear, Oh, well, this bad thing was said, um,

Speaker 3: 18:44

No, you're right. I think it's important to tie real world examples in where possible there's definitely policy areas. It's hard to do that with, but if you want people to get why a thing matters, um, you really got to tie it to their lives. Like you're saying,

Speaker 1: 18:57

When I think about section two 30 and kind of the calls to repeal it, and as you said, kind of how it's more, they just don't like free speech instead of the fact that it's online. It kind of makes me think of, Oh, well, so what if the internet was a physical space? Like, what if it was an actual place where we could all like, stand like a house? If I said something in a house, they can't do anything. They like that's, that doesn't happen. You know? But if I said it online, it just, I don't know. That's how I think about it. I don't know. But

Speaker 3: 19:34

I think you make a really good point there too. Um, especially because like stuff happens in email all the time. Like lots of legal stuff happens over email and then, you know, those emails get like submitted to records and like go to court, but they're never mad at Gmail. Right. You know, cause if you're like gonna flip out, like a lot of this is just flipping out at Gmail, um, the same kind of logic or aol.com, whatever it is. It's like no one blames an email service and they do moderate, but, um, people don't understand that, like it works the same. It's just, we're seeing this other stuff. Um, and also like when, if it's in a finagle space, like no one's going to Sue someone for, um, for doing something illegal in their store when there's no way to know that that thing was illegal or that th that it was even happening. Um, you know, we Sue bookstores for carrying books that somehow had unlawful content in it, but then we're like, Hey, this is dumb because bookstores aren't going to want to do their thing.

Speaker 1: 20:28

Plus it's not really, I mean, I don't know really how much they kind of moderate the content in bookstores. I, I bet it varies from store to store and kind of the scale of the store, but imagine being tasked with reading every single book, and there are like a million books, the store, how are you going to it's the author who wrote it, right. It's not the bookstore, but I mean, it's a little bit different, but it's kind of a similar idea. Um, something I've been thinking about a lot is kind of the difference between newspapers and platforms in regards to section two 30. Can you explain that difference to us?

Speaker 3: 21:12

So, um, so yeah, basically it's like, it's just the speaker of the content because the law doesn't say platform versus publisher, it's just like user content. So the New York times op-ed page is, um, is, you know, publish content, that stuff that's like the speaker is the New York times, but the comments underneath our user content. So those are ones that like, uh, the New York times wouldn't be liable for. And literally that's the only distinction. There is a user content versus, uh, the, the corporate or other speaker content

Speaker 1: 21:43

Makes sense. Um, you had a funny piece recently called Jeffrey Toobin should be liable for his big reveal, not zoom. And as a way of background Tuben is, or actually he was a CNN in new Yorker, a famed legal analyst who was caught masturbating on a zoom call with new Yorker colleagues. Apparently he didn't realize his camera was on. Oops. Um, the incident made quite a splash and news, kind of the talk of the town. There were a lot of jokes. A lot of Twitter memes is one can come to expect. Now, um, however, you saw this as an opportunity to explain to people what would happen if, um, this took place in a world where section two 30 had been repealed. Um, can you tell us about what the consequences of doing so would be? Yeah,

Speaker 3: 22:36

So, um, I, I think through, you know, if I, if any big story happens, I tied to my policy areas. Um, I also once had a story about a year ago, um, where it was found that Mark Zuckerberg had, uh, someone blow dry, his armpits. And I mentioned that he has hair in his armpits. That's actually illegal under most state laws that require an occupational license to blow dry hair. And it does not specify head hair. It could be body hair, according to the writing of the statute. And similarly, in this case, um, zoom is a platform they moderate, um, they don't have to moderate to be a platform, but some people are like, Oh, they'd be fine without two 30. And no, they wouldn't, they do moderate. Um, they need the protection. Um, and they had no way he was going to on a work call. Like, there's, they, they weren't made aware of it. He's not like, Oh, Hey guys, I'm planning on this. They, they didn't, you know, zoom had no idea. Um, so when he does that on a work call, if there's going to be lawsuits, uh, it, you know, assuming that there's some legal action, it should be against him instead of zoom. It's the exact same thing with any platform, when something illegal happens, there's going to be lawsuits. It shouldn't be against the platform. It should be against the guy who did thing, unless the person masturbating was a zoom, which would be different. Um, I'm the short of that. It's, you know, it's the exact same thing. And I don't think people saw it that way at first, they were like, Oh, well, that's different, but it's not. Um, you, you have a lot of cases where people are like, Oh, this is, this is a different case. This is something else. And it's not, it's the exact same thing. And I can't resist an opportunity to tie a genitalia to, um, my favorite policy area.

Speaker 1: 24:09

And I, I don't know. I think it's a really good way. Like when I came across it, I was like, Oh, perfect. Like this relates to what I'm interested in somehow. Um, but I don't know. It's just part of me thinks that the fact that it was zoom and you use zoom, that's such a good example because it's live, you can't moderate things in real time, as well as you can when it just stays there, like on Twitter. So I would think it's a better example than other examples. If you're trying to explain to people, I don't know. Those are just my thoughts.

Speaker 3: 24:46

I mean, think about it this way too. Without two 30, you go back to the moderators dilemma, where on if they moderate nothing, they're not liable or probably not liable. And or if they moderate so much that they're, they're comfortable with, what's on their platform. Um, very little speech gets through, but they're not worried so much about liability. Like those are the ways to avoid risk. Um, and if you, in that case, zoom wouldn't moderate. I, I, you know, there's, I think with some platforms there's some debate, but I don't think zoom would choose to moderate. And then we get back to, um, chat roulette, which was the famous app that kids use like 10 years ago. Um, my friends and I were on it and eventually it became all penises. Like even South park had an episode about it. They, I, not sure if they moderate it or not, but like, they definitely weren't like fighting all these weird guys, just showing their crutches on, on, um, chat roulette. And like, that's not family friendly. That's not safe. That's not good. Um, unless that's the point of the platform, but I, it wasn't at the very least how it started. It was supposed to be a way to meet people. Um, and you know, if zoom didn't moderate, it would turn into that. It would be that exact same problem. Um, and you know, no platform is going to be perfect. Sometimes they might intentionally keep up something that's illegal and that's not good, but it's a lot better than killing every single platform. That's trying really hard to do the right thing.

Speaker 1: 26:10

Can you tell us about the probability that section two 30 will be repealed and kind of who, well, I mean, you kind of touched on this, but who's pushing it and like what, the chances that it'll pass in the house, the Senate, and then be signed by the president. So I don't know.

Speaker 3: 26:26

I think it'll be repeal, but I do think there could be big changes. I'm not totally sure of the likelihood. Um, right now I'm just, I'm not sure looking at the bills in Congress right now. So, uh, I go back and forth on it, not to say I'm like, I think it'll be totally safe, cause there's always risk. And it's something that like, if advocates stopped talking, it would just happen because there's enough. Like, um, you know, there's enough desire to have the political winner who we, we stuck it to the big company is, which is stupid because it hurts us small companies with the least legal resources to deal with lawsuits in the most. But, um, I think it's possible you see changes, but the problem is almost every proposal. I think pretty much every proposal, even if it didn't repeal it, it would functionally repeal it. Um, because the, the reason we have two 30 is to protect these people from crazy and silly and harmful lawsuits. Um, so once you reopen the legal flood Gates, you know, maybe a guy takes, maybe a platform takes down some content that very clearly was bad or wrong or violated their standards. Uh, all someone has to do is Sue and say, actually, you, the law says you can't take down religious content. And technically this is religious content because, and it goes to court. And even if it doesn't win, it goes to court and you can Sue platforms out of existence. Like that's a real problem. Um, and lots of other changes did two 30 do the same exact thing one way or another. Um, and it's, it's dangerous. What'll happen is, um, you know, people depending on who, uh, who wants to kill a platform, all you have to do is flood it with lots of undesirable content, illegal content, spam pornography. So the point it's so bad, they have to moderate after choosing not to moderate. And then they, they start moderating. They miss some, and they're sued for it. Like it's, it's really dangerous. It's a dangerous game to play with free speech online. Um, and also there's, there's all different kinds of players against it. Largely people who don't understand the law or who pretend they don't understand the law. Um, a lot of it's all about politics and political wins. And another piece of it is too like media companies like this, because if they can kill free speech online, um, and really harm these platforms, then they think people are going to go back to traditional news. It's not going to work that way, but they, they see them as competitors. So they want to regulate out their competitors and to the credit of a lot of platforms, um, you know, regulatory capture is a thing. A lot of companies like being regulated because it kills their smaller up and coming competitors. The platforms though that are going against these new regulatory ideas are actually like protecting freedom and not just themselves in these cases, because instead of going to do something that would actually harm like a lot of their competitors, they're protecting freedom online. And that's something I don't see very often. And it's something that I really, really appreciate because it's the right thing to do morally. Um, it helps everyone. It's good. And, uh, you know, I'm just, I'm used to seeing quite a bit more cronyism.

Speaker 1: 29:17

I, that is a good point that it kind of there's if without it there's such an easy way to completely get rid of a competitor, I didn't even think about it. Like you could just, I mean, I can post anything I want anywhere, but if your competitor can do that and get you in trouble for it, that's, that's just awful that I don't like that.

Speaker 3: 29:44

No, exactly. And that's something that's not talked about very often, but it's something I focus on because it's, you know, regulations sometimes limit behavior, but also they can incentivize certain behavior too. Um, it's like throwing those kinds of roadblocks at one another. Um, you know, the, our, our super complex text system, uh, gives, um, you know, online tax software, a lot of business. So there there's incentive for those guys to want to keep it. So in addition to the regulatory capture stuff from being self-regulated, there's stuff like that, where can create new markets, but like not good new markets, but like bad and, and anti freedom markets, you know?

Speaker 1: 30:22

So let's talk about occupational licensing. Um, I talked to, um, Mercada, center's Matt Mitchell about this and it was great. Yeah, he is great. Um, but it's also an issue that you're passionate about and I like your take on it. It's kind of it's, it's the same, but it's, you focus on different aspects of it that I find interesting. So first, can you remind like me listeners, what occupational licensing is about and what it is? Yeah,

Speaker 3: 30:52

Totally. All it is is when the government says, Hey, before you can get involved in this profession, you or performance for money, usually for money. Not always though. Um, you need a licensed to work from the government. You have to be approved by a semi-government entity, usually there's other qualifications. And usually there's only one or two, if you're lucky paths to get there, it's not like you can say, Oh, I did this for years. My, all I know all this, and we'll be like, Oh yeah, here's a license. There'll be like, no, you have to go back to school and do all this and that, and this, and then maybe you'll get a license. Um, and it's riddled with problems.

Speaker 1: 31:26

Can you give us some examples of licensing requirements that you find particularly outrageous and kind of very much out there in a negative way?

Speaker 3: 31:37

So, um, my favorite example is always florists. Um, not every state licenses, everything, um, and Louisiana is the only state that licenses florists. Um, they used to have a physical exam where you had to make a flower arrangement. You were judged by licensed florists who didn't want competitors. So the pass rate for the exam was lower than for the Louisiana bar exam. And it's not because being a florist is so much more dangerous on harder than being a lawyer. Um, that one really stuck with me, especially because it was a story that got me into this, um, Clark Neily. Who's now at Cato. He used to be at the Institute for justice, um, litigated for Sandy Meadows, an elderly widow who lived alone. Um, she wanted to work because you are, she had to work, um, after her husband can provide for her after he passed away. Um, she knew floristry. So, um, she tried to become a licensed florist. She kept failing the exam, um, which she shouldn't have had to take anyway. And she eventually went to work illegally for a grocery. Her clients loved her. She did great, you know, they kept her employed. They could have fired her and they didn't. They liked her. Um, once the, uh, the government found she was doing it, they hold the grocery fire her, or we'll shut you down. So they had to fire her. Um, so when she died, she was in poverty, uh, because government wouldn't let her do something that she knew how to do. Um, and that story always stuck with me because of just how injusted was. But there were so many other cases. I mean, nurses, uh, are qualified to do lots of things that they're not legally allowed to do, um, because of doctor lobbies. Um, so they can't always practice on their own. They can't just take care of cases on their own. And a lot of States, um, pharmacists can't always give vaccines, even though it's safe and evidence shows it expands access to care, they can't always prescribe birth control. Um, you know, you have to have a license to be able to give legal advice, even if you know, law stuff and some, and people don't always get lawyers in courts, uh, depending on the court, um, you might not have a lawyer and you, if your friend knows law and says, Hey, I'll represent you. You can't just do that unless he's licensed. Um, and there are so many things in the middle too, like a hair braiding hair blow drying is licensed in many places. Um, all kinds of cosmetology, you know, like you said, I've rainbow hair. I bleach in diet and myself, but if I did it for someone else in any state and they paid me, I'm doing something illegal. Even though I do it for myself, I know how, um, even if I'm like, Hey, I don't have a license, but you chose me. Like, are you okay with this? Um, I'm going to do a strength test. I'm going to test this, uh, do an allergy test. Make sure it works well for you. I still can't do it without a license. Um, even if they don't pay me in Arizona a few years ago, there was a guy cutting hair for the homeless. Um, and the cosmetology board, uh, cracked down on him. He was, uh, going through cosmetology school. They said, we told you, you couldn't do this. You need to stop cutting hair for the homeless or you won't ever be licensed. So the governor who I adore, um, Arizona's current governor, Doug Ducey, um, yelled at them. And he's like, what the hell? Like this guy is a good Samaritan. He's helping people and you're cracking down on him. Like, how dare you. So thankfully he protected him, but otherwise this guy would have never gotten a license to cut hair because he was doing it for the homeless. Um, it's horrible stuff. Like this happens all the time. There's so many sides of the issues too. Um, you know, in a lot of States, if you've ever committed a crime, it will disqualify you from all kinds of licenses for no reason. And you know, it's not like, you know, let's say a car, uh, someone who stole a car can't work at an auto shop or something, it'll be more like, um, in one case in Tennessee, there was a woman who was a prostitute 10 years ago, she's reformed. She wanted to go to school to become a radiologist, found out she could never become a radiologist because she committed a sex crime. Um, even though she was a very different person and it was 10 years ago, it didn't matter. And even though it was, um, it was human trafficking, it didn't matter. It was still a sex crime. Um, there's a lot of good moral characters laws too. And it basically say, um, if the board doesn't think you have good moral character, which has no legal definition, uh, you can't get a license and there's no way you're going to know if they think you have good moral character before you go through all the training and all the schooling and waste a lot of your time and money. Um, and that, that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's so many other issues like licenses don't transfer across state lines. Governor DC was also the first to change that statewide, um, by allowing people to transfer and their licenses from other States. Um, it's not perfect. There's still some kinks to be worked out to make it broader, but he was the first to do that. Um, there are licensing compacts in some places, but not many. Um, and while, you know, if you want to move from, let's say Kansas to California, um, and you, you were a cosmetologist in Kansas. You want to do it in California. You'd have to have the board send over all your information. Um, all your records. If you're lucky you can be transferred in it's sometimes you'll have to repeat schooling. It takes a long time. Um, but if you're a police officer, none of that happens. Um, you don't need to prove you're a police officer before. Um, there's many cases where officers were, um, dishonorably discharged and like, you know, they, they committed crimes and like, it was bad enough that like, they couldn't be a police officer anymore. And then they just go somewhere else and become police chief. Um, it's a real problem that government holds cosmetologists to a higher standard than police officers. Um, and I think the kind of way we do it needs to flip the other way. Um, he gives it, it just makes no sense. They also require more training to become a cosmetology person than a police officer. So this is, I mean, even though I've listed quite a bit here, this isn't even like, you know, getting through this at all. We're still an inch deep, um, in this mile deep issue.

Speaker 1: 37:09

Yeah. I mean, it's, there is so much there. And I think often like first the moral character proving that you have moral character, if there's no legal definition, but also it's up to the board. Something that I constantly have to remind myself, the board is not made up of people who want you to be licensed. It's made up of people who would be competing against you. They want you to have a license at all. And I, I don't know, I kind of, I look at stuff like this all the time, but I constantly am forgetting that because it just seems so obviously wrong, but that's how it is. And often, I mean, Doocy did it and he spoke out against it, which is amazing, but you often don't see anything like that coming from the government. And so if the government is kind of, kind of enforcing this, this system where there are councils and boards that are made up of your competitors, it's kind of incentivizing them. It's giving them the strongest tool to eliminate competition. And it seems like it doesn't really help consumers at all. I mean, so kind of talking about cosmetology because you mentioned it and also because you've written a lot about it, it requires at least 750 hours of training, but sometimes up to 2000 hours, that's first, that's crazy. That's so much time. Um, and you wrote in the Washington examiner that quote, despite the rigorous training, the high barrier to a profession in cosmetology seems to fail, to protect consumers, health violations in salons, run rampant and quote. This is consistent with a lot of academic research that shows that licensing is no way or not really, it's just not the way to get better quality services. Can you talk a bit about that?

Speaker 3: 39:16

Yeah, exactly. And there's, um, there's some lower regulatory barriers that fix an issue like salons just tons and tons of studies show that like the rampant with health issues. Um, and like, it's not, people are like, Oh, well then you need a training to prevent infection. It's not working. So I'd much prefer, um, maybe a short health and safety training and, um, health inspections. I think that's a lot more reasonable and it would follow an actual issue because there is an issue to be solved, but then, you know, licensing, isn't solving it. Um, you know, it's in the same way, restaurants have health inspections and sometimes short bits of training, but it's not insurmountable. It's a lot more reasonable. Um, so I have no issue with barriers as long as they're solving a problem and actually solving it, not just pretending they are well, it really just helping, um, uh, you know, the industry keep competitors out. Um, you know, even with I'm, I'm fine with doctor licensing. I just want to make sure that every bit of it is about doctor licensing and D isn't like repetitive or, um, is isn't helpful because a lot of times, um, you know, that's that, that's something that's really important. Um, and people don't think about like the mean sense fit, um, you know, cause there can be constitutional goals of, of consumer protection, but we have to make sure that's actually happening. Also making sure that boards are comprised of not mostly, um, industry participants can be really, really helpful. Um, you know, uh, because like you're saying, when it is all just people who are going to compete with the applicants, like they're going to keep those applicants out. So there's lots of, lots of different reforms. W we can still have boards in some cases, I'm just not convinced that most of the boards currently need to exist. Um, we like we licensed auctioneers, uh, fortune tellers. Um, and that's just silly. I mean, we're saying that these are government approved, fortune tellers, like Lord. Oh my gosh. Um, even with contractors and a lot of cases, um, you know, we have, um, we, instead of having them licensed, they could register with the government because there is real concern about them, like skipping out of town and people have no recourse of suing that person if it's relevant, but, um, but the, uh, license doesn't solve that registration could. And even though it's still a barrier, it's a lot smaller, a lot more reasonable. Um, so when I think about the stuff, I'm always like, okay, what's the problem? Is there a problem? Is this working in States where there isn't a license, do all States license it. Um, and let's see what this looks like in different places at another country, sometimes even too. Um, so there's a lot we need to fix with this stuff. Um, I mean, in, in most cases, like I was saying with training, but there's only a couple of paths to success, um, and to getting the law that licensed, um, and a lot of cases that doesn't account for veteran experience. So people come out of the military and they think, Oh, I was, uh, I, you know, did electrical work there? I can do it when I get out. But if the board says, Oh, well that training doesn't count, or you only did this. So you can't get a license, you have to start training over. That hurts real people who served our country. There's just, there's so much room to change this stuff and to make it better. And it's not going to hurt consumers at all. Um, even if we kept things a little bit over licensed, there's still endless room for reform. Uh, but the industry is real. I'll tell you that I just don't care about consumers and stuff.

Speaker 1: 42:32

I feel like it's the opposite of not caring about consumers. I feel like it just puts the power in the hands of the consumers. And I just, I, part of me also thinks it's the real issue with deciding what needs to be licensed because there one state has occupational licensing for florists, but how I want to know what the justification was for that, like who decided, who said, Oh, this is a good idea. This is going to make people safer. This is going to really help or what I, what, I'm pretty sure. I mean, I have no actual idea. I don't know for sure, but I would first believe, Oh, well what probably happened was there were some florists and they were like, Oh, Hey government, we actually kind of really need you to put licenses on this because it's just not that safe for the consumers, but we know what we're doing. That's where my mind goes. I'm like, that seems like a more reasonable reason why I started, I have no idea why it started, but I don't know. Do you have any idea what that justification was at all or how that came about?

Speaker 3: 43:45

I forget the origin of the license, a lot of licenses and, and certain regulations too. We're just all Jim Crow or just post Jim Crow, era, stuff like that. You know, it was the key, um, minorities out of business and to like be crappy to people, um, that the reason they kept it, uh, when they went to court there, I think it was something like, Oh, well, what if a bride is carrying her flowers? And she falls, and then the STEM stabs her, or what if there's infected dirt? They didn't even say infected with what they're just like, what if there's infected dirt? Um, and it's BS, it's government lying to'em to keep its power over people that it shouldn't have. And that's, that goes back to what we talked about with Willett. He would look at a license like this and tell it to go to hell and just as he should, because it's not, there's no harm being caused. Other States, there's no evidence of harm. There's no evidence this is needed. Um, and there's no evidence that government is actually trying to solve a constitutional problem with a constitutional means. Um, and he would look at this and say, you're right to earn a living as a right. Uh, even the, even the Supreme courts kind of talked about it in the past. It doesn't protect it as much as other rights, but it has. Um, and he would say, okay, you know, um, this is an under new underrated, right? And we, uh, th this shouldn't stand, um, we need more judges like him and fewer, like the ones who upheld the law after government lied. I mean, it's literally like these go before court and it's literally like a child, the government lying to its parents, the court. And then the, the, but the, uh, the, the parents coax them on like, Oh, I think it was Clark Neily who had this in his book about it. It's like, you know, a kid's out all night and comes home. And the father is like, where, where are you? And she's like, Oh, I was out drinking with my friends. He's like, no, no, no, you weren't there. Where were you all with grandma? Right. And what were you doing? She's like drinking. No, no, no. You know, you were out, uh, helping her. Oh, right, right. And it's like, it's dumb. Everyone knows it's crap. Everyone knows that, you know, the lies are there. Um, but they just go along with it. And that's not an accountable representative government that's, um, really, really corrupt,

Speaker 1: 45:47

Really broken. Um, yeah, something that I realized when reading your work was licensing rules get in the way of entering the labor market, but they can also be used by the government to kick you out by revoking your license. So when the government revokes your licensed cosmetologist under either real or imaginary health violations, it can be a disaster. I tend to think that consumers should be the one to decide, but you also raise another issue in Massachusetts. If you default on your student loans, the state can revoke your license to work, which is crazy and absolutely counterproductive. So can you explain that a bit and tell us about that law and stuff?

Speaker 3: 46:32

Yeah. There's definitely cases of, um, government revoking licenses for dumb or stupid reasons and stuff, more of a licensing boards protecting bad members though, but in a lot of States. So like in the nineties, under the first Bush, his department of education told States, Hey, people aren't paying back student loans. You know what you should do, take away their license to work like, Oh my gosh. He's like, yeah, that'll, that'll get them. And then they'll want to repay the license. So I have a policy paper on this. Um, and it did, it did work up by getting them to take out more loans. So you're, you're hurting poor people when they're down people often who come to sickness and just can't repay the loans. It's not like they have money saved somewhere. It's like, they really can't do it. Um, and then you're taking away the means by which they would normally make the most money, because let's say someone that's a cosmetology license. Um, if they lose that license, they might be able to do something else, but they're not going to make as much money as they did there because that's their chosen profession. They have all the training and, and that they have the expertise in and knowledge. And, um, it was often used against teachers and nurses. The New York times did a big expos day in 2017, I think. Um, and thankfully after that brought it to light, um, I think there were 22 States that had it on the books. We're down to eight now. And I don't think they're using it very much anymore. They realize how harmful this is. Um, and we still advocate getting rid of it because it's stupid and horrible and mean and cruel. But, um, it goes back to this, uh, fines and fees issues where, uh, you know, government just applies fines and fees in ways that don't solve issues, but just kind of kick people while they're down. This is just another example of that. Um, and it's just really bad and evil and harmful. Um, I'm very against it and it's good to see like it being, getting, you know, we're getting rid of it. Um, I've been working on this for a long time that some States have just done it on their own after realizing, Oh, crap, this is bad. Um, but we need the laws off the books. Um, there's been some efforts on the national level with, uh, Senator Rubio on Senator Warren. So it's cool to see it by partisanship, but it's, there's all these perverse sides to licensing. It's just sick. Like the way that we, we harm people with it. Um, instead of saying, Hey, this is to protect consumers. We're like, Hey, uh, you're poor now. Oops. We're just going to take away your license so you can never get back on your feet. Um, I want people to repay their loans and the way to do that is to make sure that they can keep their job. If they're sick, once they're back on their feet, they can work, um, you know, taking, uh, D making demands, um, uh, people that they can't fulfill and the fellows then never be able to fulfill. Isn't helping anyone.

Speaker 1: 49:04

So you mentioned the repeal of those laws, which is good. And so to follow then kind of to end on a positive note to this very upsetting topic, it kind of, it's so frustrating. Um, yeah. Can you, can you give us some, um, I dunno, some good stuff that's happened on this front and kind of how we've moved in a positive direction towards helping people in that way?

Speaker 3: 49:41

Like I was saying, thankfully, there's been a ton of appeal of those laws. A lot of States are doing a lot of good justice things and getting rid of those good moral character laws, which is really, really good. And I'm very happy about that. Um, a lot of States just see it as like something that can get them good attention, and I'm very glad I want them to see it that way. Um, that's, it it's really important because if they're like, Oh, people will like, if I do this, yeah. Like that's, that's exactly how we want politicians to see the issue. Um, if they see benefits to doing the policy, they're going to do it more and they see that with licensing. So super, super encouraging there. A lot of, uh, universal licensing recognition all over the country. Governor Ducey really set a trend. Biden is for licensing reform. Trump was Obama was that's huge. I don't think I could be wrong, but I don't Bush ever talked about licensing reform or anyone before him. Um, so it's just, we're seeing a lot of really good movement. It's, it's really great to see. I mean, we're expanding your scope of practice, allowing them to practice unilaterally, expanding what pharmacists can do. Um, it's definitely going in the right direction. It, it, there's, there's real flip backs. There's new efforts to licensed stuff and it stresses me out, but overall we're doing really good. So I'm, I'm honestly genuinely like very, very encouraged by all of it. Um, I mean, you'd be shocked how often members of Congress reach out about it and were like, Hey, I love licensing reform. What can I do? And I'm like, Oh my gosh, yes, please. Um, here, the limited federal solutions, or when a state lawmaker reaches out or a governor reaches out, there'll be like, Hey, I'm going to veto this license or whatever. I'm just like, Oh my gosh. Yes. So, um, I'm very happy about that.

Speaker 1: 51:19

Yeah, that's good. That's inspiring. And that makes me happy and hopeful, but this is going in a good direction. This is, this is good for people. Um, so to wrap up finally, what is one thing you believed at one time in your life that you later changed your position on and why?

Speaker 3: 51:40

Oh, there's plenty. I mean, um, I'm trying to think of like the best example of it. Um, I guess criminal justice reform. I mean, I was just a mindless law and order person, not to say everyone who is law and order has to be mindless, but I, I personally was mindless about it. I didn't really think through everything. Um, and oddly enough, I remember it was Sean Hannity who changed my mind because he said, Hey, with the death penalty, like, you know, if we do put innocent people to jail, to us, to death, like that's a real thing that happens. And if even one innocent person dies, that's not worth the death penalty. And I'm like, you know what, he's right. Um, and Handy's not really the beacon of like wonderfulness anymore, but he changed my mind there and I'm glad he did. And since then, like, I've become really, really soft with justice because I see it's not helping people. It's not helping communities. It's not rehabilitating people. Aren't better for it. And if that's the case, we need to like change the system. So there's all kinds of stuff that I would have never seen myself advocating for that I'm like, yeah, whatever we need here to make sure that communities can recover, that they can be in good spots, that people after prison can have lives. And we're not, you know, I used to think, well, they did a bad thing. They deserve to be punished forever. But I think everyone knows someone who went to prison and it's like, well, they're not really a bad person. They just went through a thing, but it can't just be the people, you know, who are different, you know? Um, that's not how life works and that's okay, but it's just not how life works. Um, they're, they're much less likely the exception than they are the rule. Um, so I think that's the whole criminal justice thing is I had my mind changed, um, on it by lots and lots of people

Speaker 1: 53:23

That is really inspiring. And you're right, when you, if you know someone who's gone to jail, they can't be the exception. They, they're not the only person who's different. Um, and it's a good reminder, a part like just in day-to-day life. Yeah. Everyone like, just because you don't know someone and you know, they've done one bad thing doesn't necessarily mean that there's not a good side to them at all. I don't know. It's, I'm inspired by that. Thank you for sharing. And thank you.

Speaker 3: 54:00

One thing I want to leave you with too. It's funny. This is something that I thought about quite a bit. Um, after I heard it, there was an oddly enough law and order, which I don't think is often a good show as far as like representations of like the justice system and how things really work there. There was, again, I'm going to mess this up, but like one of the prosecutors like was talking to live and he's like, I can't do this job anymore because I see the gray area like live before you. Um, I just saw a black and white and no in between, but now because of the UIC color and I see all this middle, and I remember thinking about that and thinking how, like other people I know have taught me that, that gray, that middle and that rainbow of like different colors between the black and white and people like to have certainty. I am more than anyone like to a fault like certainty, but, um, but it's just not how life is.

Speaker 1: 54:53

Yeah, that's true. That's a good thing to hear in mind. I kind of, I would like there to be certainty, but I don't know. I've started to feel like there's some sort of certainty in knowing that there is no certainty because if there's not certainty for me, at least there's not certainty for anybody else.

Speaker 3: 55:10

That's a really good perspective too. And not when I had, um, when I was younger, it took me a really long time. Do you accept the gray in all different parts of life? So it's good to get that younger, honestly. Um, I'm still working through accepting the gray because I just want certainty, but that's not how life works. I haven't quite accepted it.

Speaker 1: 55:31

I see it. I see it at night acknowledged that it's there. Um, so I would like to thank you for being on my podcast and for all of your insight. And I also would like to thank everyone who listens, subscribes and shares the great end of dope podcast. If you'd like to be on the podcast or have a guest in mind, please feel free to reach out to me@thegreatantidoteatthecgo.org. Thank you again to Shauna.

Speaker 3: 55:59

Thank you so much. Bye

Speaker 2: 56:16

[inaudible].