It’s Always About Free Speech
this conservative infighting is more important than you think
Turns out there’s no good way to structure this piece. Shonda Rimes might as well have produced it since it reads like Grey’s Anatomy for politics (which I suppose would be Scandal) or a daytime soap and is just as convoluted. I do promise that there are no faked deaths or unexpected twins pretending to be each other. It’s long and a touch confusing because there are a lot of moving parts. The built in complexity is deliberate — not by me. It’s how we fail to notice these trends or dismiss them as “too out there.” They’re not.
This piece is long and will be cut off in your email. Hop over to the online version if you don’t want to have to find your place again midway through reading.
Zoom out with me, if you will. On the surface, the infighting at The Daily Wire and the accusations being launched at Louder With Crowder might not seem all that interesting — that is until you acknowledge the groundwork that they’re laying. What we’re watching unfold is the intentional muddying of the waters of what constitutes freedom of speech. I cannot stress the intentionality aspect enough.
In many ways, this reads as Free Speech: Part Two picking up where “The Conservative Movement Doesn’t See the Crumbling of Free Speech (or Their Hand in It): the importance of the feud between Steven Crowder & The Daily Wire” ends, a piece I wrote in January of 2023. If you really want to understand the whole context of what’s currently happening, I would suggest starting there.
When you look at the timing of these current incidents and the scripted talking points around “free speech,” you quickly realize that this isn’t about these companies and their employees specifically. It’s tossing chum in the water to muddy the concept and definition of free speech just in time for a turbulent 2024 election season and beyond. The term “free speech” is being thrown around relative to contractual agreements, not The First Amendment. There is a HUGE difference.
Ultimately, I posit that this is to make it easier for employers to validate their stances of firing employees whose beliefs do not align with their own. We saw it happen in 2020 when people questioned the validity of the election and the unconstitutional nature of the lockdowns. It continued into 2021 with the silencing of those who thought January 6 might be more complicated than the sound bites wanted us to believe as well as with individuals voicing their concerns for the demolition of medical freedom when the vaccine mandates were introduced. The 2020 election cycle will seem tame compared to how bloody (literally and figuratively) I anticipate 2024 will be.
How convenient it would be for the liberal media to point at companies like The Daily Wire or Louder With Crowder and say, “See! Conservatives, the party of free speech, fired people whose opinions they didn’t like,” claiming that if companies like that can do it then it’s fair game for others to fire those with dissenting opinions.
I would agree if the focus of the discussion were centered around media personalities and political pundits. Fox wants to fire Tucker Carlson? Fine. CNN tires of Don Lemon? Great. These are people who are paid for their political opinions and make their living off of them. They’re aware that certain confines to what they can and can’t say exist. One of their responsibilities is to uphold the views of the network, agree with them or not. Deviate too far from the company line and your job is in jeopardy.
It’s a different scenario when you’re discussing Joan from accounting who posted a political opinion on Facebook that her boss didn’t like. As you’ll see, there’s every legal precedent to fire her. But is that the culture in which we really want to live? Do we want to self-censor and police our own language to such an extent that we’re constantly walking on eggshells worried that our livelihood is at stake for seeing the world differently? No thanks.
The Greater Conspiracy
It’s hard to know where to begin in laying out my red stringed conspiracy board because there are so many intersecting threads here. We have to rewind months, if not years, to when the early elements of this puzzle appeared. With how quickly we’re meant to forget the happenings of the news cycle, that kind of time frame might as well be dog years. We’re not supposed to retain this information, much less piece it together.
So let’s start with the very concept of freedom of speech and work our way through some actual incursions of it before moving on to these recent “controversies” that might not even be on your radar since you’ve likely written them off as nothing more than insipid prattle. (Some things deserve a bit of redundancy.)
Despite claiming that his words were taken out of context to make him sound crazy to his Liberal base, RFK Jr. nicely summarized the active threats to the First Amendment and our freedom of speech in a recent interview with Erin Burnett of CNN saying —
President Biden is a much worse threat to democracy [than Trump], and the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history — the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech.
He continues —
No president of the country has ever done that. The greatest threat to democracy in not someone who questions election returns, but a President of the United States who uses the power of his office to force the social media companies — Facebook, Instagram, Twitter — to open a portal and give the access to that portal to the FBI, the CIA, to the IRS, to CISA, to NIH to censor his political critics.
President Biden is the first president in history who used his power over the Secret Service to deny Secret Service protection to one of his political opponents for political reasons. He’s weaponizing the federal agencies. Those are really critical threats to democracy.
This is the conversation that we should be having day in and day out until every American realizes that our First Amendment rights are not only gravely at risk, they’re already disappearing before our eyes.
But it’s not the topic on everyone’s mind. Even within this RFK Jr. segment, you see Burnett redirecting conversation back to Trump and the 2020 election results. Meanwhile the coverage of Diddy rolls constantly because it receives far more eyes on it than proclaiming to the world that political censorship is alive and well. There’s plenty of ink to print both.
Instead we get this watered down fake free speech infringement parroting and are told that we should be outraged. I’m not, at least not about this. If you want to let your blood boil about something, might I suggest any of the following violations of the First Amendment —
the Twitter Papers
Meta’s interference in the 2020 election
the TikTok Ban and the infringements for which it paves the way
the suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop
tossing January 6 protestors in jail
DOJ silencing parents at school board meetings and labeling them as terrorists
Biden’s short lived disinformation task force
any host of FBI activities
But question any one of these topics and people shout, “Disinformation!!” and label you a conspiracy theorist. Except mere months after the fact, the stories that we’re told are disinformation turn out to be true. You’ve gotta love a predictable trend.
A Staunch Advocate for Free Speech
If there were a little mall kiosk with a stick figure human waving at you marking, “You are here,” that would be me in the media complex of free speech. That little icon would even be holding a copy of the Constitution just to drive home the point.
Free speech is a fantastic thing. It allows us to speak our minds and air out good ideas along with the bad. It prevents us from living in a dictatorship or a dystopian sci-fi future. I want everyone to be able to voice his or her belief systems. Yes, even those that are reprehensible and make my blood run cold. That is an individual’s right under our justice system.
But what does that mean in practical terms? Where do we derive our concept of freedom of speech? I give you, The First Amendment.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A few key elements to note here are the references to Congress and laws. Hold that in your mind as we move deeper into this discussion. These become important when we start addressing contractual obligations and at-will employment.
There’s been an exhausting amount of debate around the interpretation of the words of the First Amendment in recent years, particularly as it relates to social media platforms. The question in play is whether entities like Meta, Google, and X (formerly Twitter) are utilities or publishers and whether their actions of repression of speech are justifiably protected under Section 230, an aspect of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. While Ben Shapiro tosses out this talking point in his debate about free speech, it’s a bit of a red herring as it relates to his situation. Section 230 and its vast ramifications are incredibly important but not the intended focus of what I assert here. We’ll give a nod to the fact that it is a vital conversation, but leave it as a separate discussion.
What Free Speech Is Not
Somewhere along the line, it got bungled that free speech refers to being able to say whatever you want whenever you want without any consequences. Good luck with that. You’re welcome to voice your opinions, but they will impact how others relate to you. Like so many other terms — racism, sexism, homophobia, hate speech, terrorism — the meaning has become so diluted that when someone does speak out again ACTUAL infringement on freedom of speech and his or her rights under the First Amendment, it rings of the boy who cried wolf.
What’s actually at play here is the extent to which employers have purview over what an employee is allowed to say and in which scenarios. In other words, can you be fired for saying things that your employer doesn’t like? You sure can!
Any Time. Any Reason.
With the exception of Montana, all U.S. states uphold at-will employment relationships. The National Conference of State Legislatures states it in the following way —
The At-Will Presumption
The U.S. is one of a handful of countries where employment is predominantly at-will. Most countries throughout the world allow employers to dismiss employees only for cause. Some reasons given for our retention of the at-will presumption include respect for freedom of contract, employer deference, and the belief that both employers and employees favor an at-will employment relationship over job security.At-Will Defined
At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.At-will also means that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences. For example, an employer can alter wages, terminate benefits, or reduce paid time off. In its unadulterated form, the U.S. at-will rule leaves employees vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden dismissal, a limited or on-call work schedule depending on the employer’s needs, and unannounced cuts in pay and benefits.
Now, there are common business courtesies to which many companies and individuals adhere such as the decency of providing two weeks notice before leaving a position or offering cause for termination before firing an individual. None of that is legally necessary. Technically.
Harsh? Yes. That’s why over the years some Common Law Exceptions have been added. These focus on the following three areas — Public Policy, Implied Contract, and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Again, these are more red herrings.
Not all states acknowledge all aspects of these exceptions. Arguing the validity of them to fight perceived wrongful termination can result in astronomical legal fees so is often cost prohibitive. Understand that a solid contract protects both the employer and the employee from ambiguous scenarios. But you’ll notice that none of this actually mentions or relates to free speech. Curious.
Enter Illegal Discrimination, defined as the following —
Illegal Discrimination
Federal and state discrimination statutes prohibit employers from basing employment decisions on an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or veteran status. Specific state statutes may also protect employees from discrimination based on other factors, such as sexual orientation.It is important to recognize that discrimination statutes shield members of protected classes only from adverse employment actions made because of their membership in a protected class. In other words, an employer may fire Jane because she failed to perform the required functions of her job, but not because she is in a wheelchair.
Okay, we still haven’t heard any mention of The First Amendment, have we? With the exception of those working in the field of journalism, it has very little bearing on your employment because, as we have laid out here, the vast majority of folks are at-will employees.
This all becomes incredibly relevant in just a moment.
But ah, how effective it is to muddy the waters and rewrite meanings and definitions to serve an alternate purpose. That’s exactly what is happening here. What coincidental timing that, playing out in the court of public opinion, there are two employment debacles associated with independent right wing media companies — The Daily Wire and Louder With Crowder. Both are being cast as issues of impeded free speech. Really? That was enough to arouse my suspicions and say, hey, something isn’t right here (and then spend way more time on this than I ever dreamed).
So what is happening within these companies? Don’t let the shiny objects distract you. This is by no means a free speech issue, but it could be soon.
You might want to stretch your legs before we begin.
Would You Hire Candace Owens?
Candace Owens is unlikable. Ben Shapiro speaks too quickly to hide his own inadequacy. Jeremy Boreing is just a tool. Their egos have exceeded their competency and the quality of their content. Living in an echo chamber of your own brilliance is dangerous, and each is providing a cautionary tale of what happens when you do just that.
My tolerance for all three is low. I don’t care that Shapiro was recorded saying mean things about Candace at a party over their dissenting views on Israel. The barbs exchanged between the two on Twitter (isn’t that easier than calling it X?) are theatrics. And I’m fairly certain that aspects of the parting of ways between Candace and The Daily Wire are yet another publicity stunt in her constant plays at clout chasing. None of that actually matters despite the relentless “hot takes” across the internet and everyone clamoring to know what she’ll do next.
I don’t care. Let Candace Owens fade into oblivion.
Now, because of the actual censorship and deplatforming of right leaning voices (which the majority of the talent at The Daily Wire has “miraculously” evaded) and the predatory contracts at The Daily Wire that were spotlighted by Steven Crowder in January of 2023, I have been following this separation with interest.
When I opined on the feud between The Daily Wire and Crowder, I watched a lot of conservative commentators focus on the wrong topics and/or simply miss the mark altogether. It’s happening again.
Side Note: If you’re interested in that discussion as a precursor to this one, you can find it here. Shad Brooks of Knights Watch also offers an excellent 3+ hour breakdown of the abysmal Daily Wire contract in his video “Steven Crowder is right, the Daily Wire contract was GARBAGE, here's why…” — if you wonder what I sounded like pausing the TV to add my thoughts to the nonsense that Jeremy Boreing was spewing, this is it.
You can trace Candace Owens’ seeds of discontent with her employment at The Daily Wire back to that January 2023 feud. I suspect that it’s the first time she realized what a crap contract she had signed. Chances are that she’s been looking for an out from The Daily Wire since then. But as much as Candace is trying to center herself (again) and gain more notoriety from this split, it’s actually Shapiro’s PR tour that caught my attention — specifically his interview with Dave Rubin. However, don’t forget about Candace altogether. She comes back into play.
Before we delve into the specifics of the conversation between Rubin and Shapiro, it’s worth noting that Shapiro is making the media rounds to… say nothing. His main talking point is to tell the hosts that he won’t comment. One of the most obvious examples of this calculated ploy is seen with Shapiro’s appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored. Shapiro knows full well that the question on everyone’s mind is exactly what Morgan asks, “Was she fired or did she leave of her own volition?” referring to Candace Owens.
Shapiro proceeds to sit there with a shit eating grin answering, “I’m not going to speak to this topic Piers.” Then why the heck are you on his show? Why do a media tour less than a week after Candace and The Daily Wire parted ways if you’re not going to address it? Power.
This repeated visible evasion of the topic that everyone wants Shapiro and The Daily Wire to address is fully calculated. It shows Candace that Shapiro has reach. Within days he was a guest on all of the major right leaning shows. While flexing his influence and showing that he is the face of the company, Shapiro is simultaneously stressing the talking point that “I am not in a hiring or firing position with The Daily Wire.” Hats off to the Hodge Twins for being the only ones that I’ve heard mock that position. It’s laughable to think that Shapiro doesn’t hold sway within the company. Sure, he might not be in management, but that doesn’t mean that his desires as co-founder don’t hold weight.
Candace isn’t the only one over whom Shapiro is asserting his power. By allowing himself to be booked on these shows knowing full well that he’s not going to address the questions he will inevitably be asked, it not only displays bad form but an act of control over the hosts of the programs. Proof of point is his self-congratulatory smile every time he completes this play. So let’s not pretend that he doesn’t control outcomes at The Daily Wire when he has this much sway over conservative media as a whole.
In his recent media appearances, Shapiro continually stresses the difference between being a publisher and a platform. It’s on his punch card of media prep. We’ll delve into this more deeply with the Rubin interview. His comments here bring back into focus the confines of the contracts at The Daily Wire and their punitive nature. Shapiro specifically states —
The Daily Wire is a publisher not a platform. I’ve never called for Candace or anyone else for that matter to be banned from YouTube, to be banned from X, to be banned from any platform.
– Ben Shapiro on The Rubin Report with Dave Rubin | Mar 28, 2024
True. But his censorship is happening indirectly. We learned from Crowder publicly sharing the proposed contract from The Daily Wire and Jeremy Boreing producing that Term Sheet in his reply that there are fee reductions if a personality is deplatformed or loses ad revenue from a boycott (among other penalties). This means that the hosts at The Daily Wire are so vested financially in what Big Tech does that they will censor themselves before YouTube or the like ever has a chance to intervene. Shapiro may not be calling for anyone to be banned, but he is certainly tying the hands of those at his company. That was the warning that Crowder was voicing in January of 2023 when he exposed the terms from The Daily Wire.
Back to the interview between Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin, who has interestingly inserted himself in the middle of a lot of this action in a way very reminiscent of Candace Owens. Funny how Rubin is on his own little media tour now that Candace is hosting her show on Locals, the platform that he founded. Let’s add a red thread to our board of “coincidences” for that one. Remember how I said that I think a heck of a lot of this is a publicity stunt? Yeah. This is why. Candice, Rubin, and The Daily Wire are all benefiting off of the increase in press, at least in theory. I hold them in less esteem with every interview I watch.
There’s a real irony to Shapiro calling out Candace for her “faux sophistication” when he could be accused of the same thing in this conversation. It’s worth mentioning because Shapiro’s ridiculously fast speech pattern is meant to hide his ineptitude. You’re not supposed to keep up or understand. Lack of clarity is the point. And you thought these sneaky speech tactics were resigned to only the shifty spiritual leaders. Of course you didn’t. You knew full well that they were alive and well in politics.
It takes almost two minutes of a nine minute interview to move past fluff and pleasantries. This again drives home the notion that Shapiro is on tour to say nothing.
Like clockwork, Shapiro hits one of his scripted talking points at the 5:10 mark —
The difference between a publisher like The Daily Wire and a platform like Locals is obviously that a platform should have a very broad range of speech that it allows, including speech that maybe even the creators don’t believe is inside what they would consider the Overton Window. That’s a very different thing than direct subsidization of particular opinions.
The Daily Wire would not have a host, would not pay a host, who is staunchly pro-abortion. They have no obligation to pay a host who is staunchly pro-abortion. So when it comes to the hosts on The Daily Wire, obviously everyone is able to say what they want. Nobody ever comes to me and says you can’t say X. Nobody ever says that to Walsh. And nobody ever said that to Candace.
But the reality is that there is an Overton Window at The Daily Wire. Obviously there was a non-meeting of the minds. That’s pretty much all I can say on this. A lot of this has happened publicly. To the extent that The Daily Wire is in fact not a platform, it is a publisher, that means that there is no moral obligation — and there is no free speech problem — with The Daily Wire we don’t wish to pay or that host saying I don’t want to work here anymore.
– Ben Shapiro on The Rubin Report with Dave Rubin | Mar 28, 2024
Rubin follows up Shapiro’s diatribe by asking —
Does it surprise you that so many people, even on our side of this, are confused about that as it relates to free speech and quote-unquote cancel culture? Severing a business tie, as long as you’re not throwing someone in jail and they’re able to be everywhere else, is not cancel culture.
I don’t want to transcribe this entire thing, but I do want to harp on Shapiro’s complete lack of understanding and misuse of the term Overton Window, so there’s one more quote that’s coming your way. Here’s the rest of what Shapiro has to say —
I’m not super surprised at the controversy, honestly. To a certain extent, I think that there’s been a reaction on the right to the excesses of the left. So because what the left did is they said that the Overton Window ought to be closed so tight that no one can get inside the Overton Window. Basically if you’re to the right of Hilary Clinton, you can’t be allowed inside the Overton Window.
And not just with regard to platforms but with regard to publishers. So for example this week NBC News deciding that Ronna McDaniel was too much for them. Ronna McDaniel can’t work at NBC News. The sacred halls of NBC News must not be sullied by the former head of the RNC. Jen Psaki however can have a show on MSNBC despite being the Press Secretary for The White House five seconds ago.
The right response to that is, I think correct to say, you guys have shut the Overton Window too tight. But I think some elements of the right have basically said there is no Overton Window. The Overton Window should be completely exploded with regard not just to platforms, with which I kind of agree, but with regard to publishers. So NBC News not only has an obligation to hire Ronna McDaniel, NBC News has the obligation to hire Alex Jones for example. I don’t think that’s true.
– Ben Shapiro on The Rubin Report with Dave Rubin | Mar 28, 2024
Here’s the reality. The Overton Window has NOTHING to do with anything that Shapiro and Rubin are discussing. NOTHING.
I will now quote the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, also known as the “nonpartisan research and educational institute” that coined the term in the mid-nineties.
Overton Window
The Overton Window is a model for understanding how ideas in society change over time and influence politics. The core concept is that politicians are limited in what policy ideas they can support — they generally only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window. Other policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing popular support if they champion these ideas. These policies lie outside the Overton Window.
Did you catch that? The Overton Window specifically and only applies to political policy — none of which was the subject of Shapiro’s commentary. That means that in the eight times that the term is uttered in a three minute period, not once was it used correctly. I strongly encourage you to watch this two and a half minute video that the Mackinac Center for Public Policy created to explain this concept.
It’s incredibly important to understand what the Overton Window actually is and how it functions in order to refute the nonsense that Shapiro was stating. The way it’s framed in the short video is incredibly interesting —
The Overton Window of Political Possibility Explained
The Overton Window is a model of policy change, and the Overton Window describes one big thing. Ideas that are inside the Overton Window are ideas that are politically safe. The public is ready to accept them. But ideas that are outside the Overton Window are ideas that might be too radical for the public to accept. And any politician who supports ideas that are outside the Overton Window today risks finding himself getting defeated in the next election.Anything that changes the public’s perception of an idea can shift the Overton Window, things like think tanks, the media, entertainment, a crisis, or historical events. Anything that gets the idea out in the open so that it can be discussed and debated has the potential to shift the window.
Which means that The Daily Wire and all other media entities are shaping the Overton Window, not functioning within it. Much like these organizations are one component in trend forecasting or futurist theories, they are a small part of what influences the movement and size of the Overton Window.
What Shapiro actually intends when using the term Overton Window is a phrase that he says toward the very end of the interview — “the range of acceptable discourse at The Daily Wire.”
Believe it or not, this concept is what everyone is attempting to discuss but has erroneously labeled free speech. I want to dissect this at greater length in a bit. For now, let’s maintain our focus on the interview between Rubin and Shapiro.
What this really comes down to is an employment dispute, not a free speech debate. Rubin almost gets this right. It’s actually totally irrelevant why Candace Owens and The Daily Wire parted ways which is why I think there’s something bigger at play. All parties involved are making a media storm where there doesn’t need to be one. Censorship and free speech are being conflated with contractual obligations and at-will employment. The Overton Window is being bastardized to describe socially acceptable speech.
Side Note: If you want a solid take on Shapiro’s hypocrisy regarding his long standing views when the outcomes are less favorable to him, I highly recommend listening to the observations of
in “The Double-Think of Ben Shapiro.” Bonus points that he calls Shapiro out for his erroneous use of the Overton Window. I cheered when I heard him correct the usage.So why does Shapiro consistently return to the distinction between a publisher and a platform? It’s one of his main talking points. I reiterate my theory that there’s a greater agenda at play working to validate the termination of anyone who disagrees with the accepted beliefs of a business so that when we’re force fed controversies leading up to the election, unemployment soars and people rampantly self-censor. These talking heads are merely celebrity chasing pawns.
It’s safe to assume that the major platforms are going to overtly censor, but that creates incredible friction and attention on the very ideas and events that they want to suppress. Having people live in fear of speaking their minds is a far more effective tactic. Fewer fingers get pointed at them.
So what is happening between The Daily Wire and Candace Owens? Well, I have my theories.
Shameless plug for you to subscribe.
Don’t Let a Good Controversy Go to Waste
Hats off to Ari Jacob, a former talent agent, for doing some simple contract math. She points out that the teaser for Candace’s new show at The Daily Wire originally dropped on March 9, 2021. The premier followed on March 19, 2021 on DailyWire+ and hit YouTube the next day.
On March 22, 2024, Jeremy Boreing tweeted, “Daily Wire and Candace Owens have ended their relationship.” [insert abacus noise as I move my beads to calculate] Three years plus a day. As Jacob puts it, “This timeline suggests that Candace’s contract simply wrapped up, leading to he
This explains Shapiro’s cat who ate the canary demeanor on his media tour of silence. He’s choosing not to comment on why The Daily Wire and Candace split because, well, it simply isn’t as salacious as the theories being cooked up on the internet. The truth wouldn’t receive nearly the press that all of this conjecture garners. Plus, he’s incredibly proud to be pulling one over on people.
I do suspect that there were a few additional factors that contributed to the decision by The Daily Wire not to renew Candace’s contract, none of which has anything to do with antisemitism or Israel. We do need to revisit the offer Steven Crowder received from The Daily Wire and the terms of that agreement. In it were a whole host of penalties for demonetization on YouTube as well as other platforms.
Why is this so relevant? Because Candace Owens was demonetized on YouTube in June of 2023 for an anti-trans video and subsequently suspended in September of the same year because of anti-LGBTQ+ statements. Huh, it turns out that Crowder was right.
While the terms offered to Crowder might not be identical to the contract that Candace signed, it provides a rough ballpark of the penalties that she was facing due to the strikes she received on YouTube which likely resulted in a Fee reduction of 25% for the initial incursion and an additional reduction of 20% for the suspension.
The irony is that Candace, never one to miss an opportunity for clout chasing, inserted herself into the back and forth between Crowder and The Daily Wire in her video “Steven Crowder Is a Drama Queen,” claiming that by drawing attention to the contracts at The Daily Wire, “Then [Steven Crowder] also threw mud on me,” referencing what she saw as mudslinging. In following days, she became the mouthpiece for The Daily Wire in berating Crowder for exposing their contracts. Granted, she also credits herself with prompting Jeremy Borering, CEO at The Daily Wire, to respond —
I wanted The Daily Wire to respond to it. I said, you have to respond to this. This makes us all look guilty. People are now thinking I signed a contract that I sold my soul to the Devil. This is the implication here. So Jeremy Borering, the CEO of The Daily Wire, did in fact give a response.
Throughout this feud, Candace remained fixated on the money, throwing barbs such as —
First and foremost, I’m going to say this, unrelatable. Unrelatable! People are trying to pay for bacon and eggs right now at the grocery store or trying to buy a steak once a week, and you’re over here crying because someone couldn’t meet you at $120M. And it is crying. I don’t like it. It was a total bitch move.
Set the dollar amounts aside for a moment. They’re irrelevant to this discussion, though I do break them down in depth in my initial discussion about this dispute. When you factor in production costs and the revenue that Louder With Crowder generates, the figures sound a lot more valid. What’s truly salient is Candace’s breakdown of her perception of Crowder’s motives and actions —
At the end of the day, I think what happened — and this my… completely my opinion by the way. I’m not blinking twice. I’m not under duress — is that Steven Crowder became a free agent, and he is feeling a little vulnerable right now. Right? He’s used to working for other organizations. He has some guaranteed pay, and thought that Daily Wire were actually going to meet him at $120M. They didn’t. They declined, and he’s still feeling a little shaky on that.
It’s scary to go out on your own. I thought about that. I thought about going out on my own. It’s a lot of work. Maybe down the line I will. But it’s a scary thing to go step out on your own and say, ‘I’m going to do this thing completely by myself.’
As Jeremy pointed out, Steven’s not done that before. Right? And so to do this, he pulled a move in which he was going to try to take a bunch of people that were subscribed to The Daily Wire and start his own company to essentially say, ‘I’m the hero. I’m the martyr. Follow me because I’m not like those guys.’ And then he was going to start his own shop.
Swap out Steven Crowder’s name for Candace Owens, and doesn’t that sound an awful lot like what she’s in the midst of doing?
Candace was a hire at The Daily Wire to bring more eyes and more revenue through YouTube. She had a strong foundation from her time at Turning Point USA and PragerU. When she was demonetized on YouTube, her worth plummeted. Crowder nailed it. It wasn’t as much her views on the current state of global affairs that got her fired — it was the fact that she offended YouTube and was demonetized.
Her value wasn’t there.
By the end, her income might have been close to nonexistent based on the way that the penalties snowball in the contracts at The Daily Wire. Their thinking could easily have been, “We’re not making any money with her. All she’s doing is being a thorn in our side. Let’s just get rid of her.” Contract not renewed. The end. Candace would never admit it, but Crowder was right.
As Candace claims, she’s finally free. This turn of phrase is intentionally misleading — or at least a double entendre. It’s not about her saying what she wants to say. It’s about her making money.
While I don’t condone censorship, particularly not that of YouTube, I do think that if we’re being honest, the YouTube demonetization is her clout chasing catching up with her.
The antisemitic discourse and constant restating of “Christ is King” is a smokescreen that then validates everyone’s press tour. When is the last time that you’ve seen Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, or Dave Rubin get this much air time? Their milking of the public’s perception is working.
This seems like an ideal time to transition to the other controversy at hand.
Now would be a great time to go grab a cup of coffee — and subscribe — before we continue.
Dude, You Signed an NDA
Here’s where things start to tie together and why I’m laboriously painting a picture of all of this drama (and using up a heck of a lot of red string). At the end of Candace’s attack on Crowder in her “Steven Crowder Is a Drama Queen” video from January 20, 2023 and later that night on Tim Pool’s show, Candace mentions —
I’m pretty sure, wasn’t it Steven Crowder who also screwed over somebody he used to work with? Was it Not Gay Jared, because he had him tied up in a contract? Wasn’t that Steven Crowder who did that?
She goes on to say —
Steven, why don’t you release Not Gay Jared from his NDA and allow him to talk about how he felt he was treated by you, because I know that at TheBlaze, everyone says that you’re actually not that nice. You treat people poorly, but you bring in so much revenue that everybody just has to take it. So I don’t like it. It stinks to high heaven, and I’m calling you out on that because I think that it was crappy that you threw mud on me.
Which brings us back to the drama of today. It’s like magic.
Four days after Candace proclaimed her freedom from The Daily Wire, a former producer for Louder With Crowder, Jared Monroe (aka Jared Mitello or Not Gay Jared) who left the company in 2018, released a video claiming legal abuse by the company and the throttling of his free speech.
This gets so much more complicated that it makes the happenings at The Daily Wire look straightforward. But to my mind, the most important aspect is the timing. You’re telling me that it’s happenstance that two of the largest independent conservative media companies found themselves in the press with supposed free speech complaints in the same week? I don’t buy it.
There’s no way that this timing is coincidental. Change my mind.
Even if we take Jared’s video at face value and ignore his involvement with Steven Crowder’s soon to be ex-wife, Hilary Crowder, it doesn’t hold water. We’ll address the Crowder divorce proceedings and Jared’s role in them after we poke crater sized holes in his grievances against Louder With Crowder.
But before we do that, we need to acknowledge that more than a year prior, Candace first mentioned Jared’s NDA. Is your head spinning yet? Do I need to pause so that you can run out and pick up more red string so that your conspiracy board looks complete? This becomes relevant in a second.
I went back and forth about whether or not to address the entirety of Jared’s video at length and ultimately decided to break apart each section for the same reasons that I completed that exercise with Jeremy Boreing’s presentation in his video response to Steven Crowder in January of 2023. The delivery is deceiving.
So what does Jared’s video have to say? Let’s begin.
First of all, much like my clever play on words a few paragraphs ago where I reference one of Louder With Crowder’s regular segments titled “Change My Mind,” Jared posts his video on Twitter with the text, “I didn’t want to do this…” copying the title from the video in which Crowder exposed the predatory contracts of The Daily Wire. So out of the gate we know that Jared is positioning himself as the aggrieved party. The hashtag #FreeJaredMonroe also might have given it away.
The premise of the video, and Jared’s major claim, is that he is, “Currently being legally abused and intimidated into silence by a former employer.” While Louder With Crowder is never explicitly named, it’s evident that they are the employer that he is referencing. Also understand that Jared left Louder With Crowder in August of 2018. [pulls out the abacus] That’s six and a half years. Timing. Timing. Timing. It’s worth questioning.
Know going into this that Jared is an unreliable narrator. He obfuscates the truth and relies on those watching not understanding contract law even in the slightest. His tone and demeanor are meant to convince you of the terrible hardship he’s faced by receiving these relatively standard legal documents and requirements of the court. His play is one of emotions, not facts.
As the video unfolds we learn that Jared is objecting to what he believes are overly strict confines of an NDA and that he’s morally in the right. Frankly, we could stop right here because making a video about the unfairness of the NDA actively violates that very NDA. It’s really that simple. The law doesn’t care about your feelings.
But this convoluted argument deserves some line by line breakdowns. And yes, to the best of my abilities, this is a full transcript. I’ve had some practice from when I transcribed raw footage for Reality TV as a side gig. Ready? Ready?
Since references to the NDA arise repeatedly, it’s important to understand what they are and how they function. I found this explanation written by Lorraine Dindi for Legislate to be straightforward —
Non-Disclosure Agreement
A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also known as a confidentiality agreement, is a contract between a party disclosing confidential information and the party receiving that information. The receiving party, who is also known as the recipient, agrees to protect the other party’s confidential information by keeping it secure, not using it for unauthorised purposes, and not disclosing it to third parties. NDAs are crucial whenever sensitive information is being shared.
According to Jared —
In late October of 2023, to my surprise, I was served these papers, a cease and desist from my former employer. It threatened severe legal action in the form of a lawsuit and demanded that I cease communication with my friends. The scare tactics of cease and desist are generally to intimidate, isolate, and eventually devastate. Like most cease and desists, it also demanded that I swiftly provide them written certificate of my compliance. I did not.
So out of the gate, Jared is distorting this legal request. A cease and desist letter as defined by Cornell Law School is —
Cease and Desist
A cease and desist letter is a cautionary letter sent to an alleged wrongdoer describing the alleged misconduct and demanding that the alleged misconduct be stopped. A cease and desist letter provides notice that legal action may and will be taken if the conduct in question continues.Such letters are usually written by attorneys and are often sent to stop alleged or actual infringement of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, trademarks, and patents.
A cease-and-desist letter may also be used to warn the wrongdoer against harassment, slander, libel, as well as contractual violations. Even though a cease-and-desist letter is a non-binding letter and does not have a legal effect, it is primarily sent to the wrongdoer so that it may later be used as evidence in litigation against the wrongdoer if the alleged misconduct is not stopped.
In essence, it’s a letter that says, “Please stop.” They’re often used so that situations don’t escalate. They’re not scare tactics. They’re warnings.
Now, if you were watching this video in isolation without any knowledge of other ordeals that are in the works, such as the divorce between Hilary and Steven Crowder, you might think, “Wow. Telling Jared to stop communicating with his friends sounds harsh.” It’s not given that context.
There’s a whole other set of legal proceedings occurring relative to the Crowder divorce that also include Louder With Crowder the company since it is part of the marital estate. By all accounts, the split is contentious. Regardless of whether you share an opinion with Candace Owens and think that “Steven Crowder is a monster,” the salient information is that he is in the midst of legal proceedings. Therefore, taking legal action to hold a former employee to an NDA is completely within his legal rights.
We’re talking a signed, contractual agreement — this seems to be a point that alludes Jared Monroe.
Many of the individuals that Jared refers to as “friends” are former Louder With Crowder employees and others associated with the company and show. If Jared were getting together with them and talking about coffee and the weather, none of this would be an issue. But we know that Jared is running his mouth about the NDA because we heard Candace Owens address it publicly in January of 2023.
It’s a bit like the rules of Fight Club. Don’t talk about Fight Club. Don’t talk about the NDA.
Jared goes on to explain that —
In the same delivery, I was also served these papers, a Rule 202 Petition from my former employer. You can look that up on the internet. I know I had to.
Great! Let’s do that. What is a Rule 202 Petition? You know that a lot of people have been searching for this term considering that Google auto populates “Texas” after you enter “Rule 202 Petition.” (That’s where Louder With Crowder is based.) We’ll go with the first search result on this one since it’s likely what everyone else is using. The Texas Civil Justice League defines it as —
Rule 202 Petition
Rule 202, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, enables a “person” to “petition the court for an order authorizing the taking of a deposition on oral examination or written questions either: (a) to perpetuate or obtain the person’s own testimony or that of any other person for use in an anticipated suit; or (b) investigate a potential claim or suit.”
Straightforward enough. It allows for a deposition to ascertain whether Jared is doing what the lawyers for Louder With Crowder think he’s doing in regard to violating his NDA. But Jared sees it differently —
These documents were filed with the County Court of my former place of employment demanding that I be subject to an oral deposition under oath for an unlimited amount of time where they were free to interrogate me on pretty much any private matter that they choose.
While depositions aren’t exactly fun, they’re not as tortuous as Jared would have us believe and again, are a very typical part of the legal process. You’ve likely seen photos or videos of them. An individual sits in front of a gray or blue background reminiscent of a bad school portrait backdrop and speaks to a camera while illuminated by bad lighting. You know, like Epstein.
The open endedness of the unlimited amount of time is because the lawyers don’t know what to anticipate going into the deposition. Did Jared talk to one person or five? At what length? Can they cover it all in an hour or is it an explanation that will take five days?
He’s choosing misleading language again. The picture he’s painting of them being able to “interrogate [him] on pretty much any private matter they chose” is inaccurate. They are able to question him, which is not an interrogation, on any personal matters and communication that directly relate to the potential violation of the NDA. Discussing it in his personal life does not preclude him from the legality of the contract.
Let’s continue —
Also, in this petition for discovery, they demanded that I turn over documents of all communications with more than a dozen of my friends and unlimited amounts of unnamed persons in any form and over an unlimited period of time. I did not.
Since we’re on a roll with defining legal terms, let’s not leave out discovery. The American Bar Association describes it in the following way —
Discovery
To begin preparing for trial, both sides engage in discovery. This is the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they’ll present at trial.Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. It’s designed to prevent "trial by ambush," where one side doesn’t learn of the other side’s evidence or witnesses until the trial, when there‘s no time to obtain answering evidence.
One of the most common methods of discovery is to take depositions. A deposition is an out-of-court statement given under oath by any person involved in the case. It is to be used at trial or in preparation for trial. It may be in the form of a written transcript, a videotape, or both. In most states, either of the parties may take the deposition of the other party, or of any other witness. Both sides have the right to be present during oral depositions.
Essentially, Jared is required to turn over any documents that demonstrate that he violated the contractual obligations and stipulations of his NDA. Based on a copy of the Rule 202 Petition distributed by H. Pearl Davis (so take it with a grain of salt since I didn’t secure the court documents first hand), the list that Jared is trying to paint as “friends” reads as follows —
Dave Landau
Hilary Crowder
Brittany White-Turner
Sven Tiedemann
Everett Wade
Courtney Kirchoff
Edward Parker
Aaron Luna
Jeremy Boring
Natalie Korzon
Debrah Korzon
Garrett Morrison
Employees and/or representatives of The Daily Wire;
Current and former employees of Louder with Crowder, LLC; and
Any other individual, not currently known, to whom Respondent has made disparaging comments about LWC and/or Crowder.
Knowing that Candace made an overt reference to the NDA on her show at The Daily Wire over a year before Jared released his recent video, inclusions of such entities as The Daily Wire make total sense. It then stands to reason, if Jared is speaking to Candace about this, who else might he have told? This list also includes Hilary Crowder, Steven Crowder’s ex-wife, who is in her own legal proceedings with Louder With Crowder, as previously mentioned. There’s a lot more to that, but one topic at a time.
Dave Landau, the name at the top of the list, is another former Louder With Crowder employee who was disgruntled with his time on the show and his departure. He speaks about it very openly in an interview with Michael Malice in April of 2023. During their conversation Landau mentions that he was asked to sign an NDA with financial compensation and didn’t because he felt that it went against everything for which the show stands. Noted.
Landau joined Louder With Crowder in February of 2021 after guesting on the show fairly regularly. As time went on, tensions mounted. I’m going to skip the particulars. Listen to the interview for yourself if they’re of interest to you. Toward the end of his employment, Landau was presented with what he viewed as a very harsh contract. Based on the excerpts that he read, it came across as a nuisance contract meant to prompt Landau to quit so that the show wouldn’t have to fire him.
If you want to go after Crowder for having contracts that are as predatory as The Daily Wire, have at it. They may well be. That’s a different discussion. It still isn’t a throttling of free speech.
Upon his departure from Louder With Crowder, Landau and another former employee joined forces for a new show on TheBlaze, the former platform of Louder With Crowder. It’s also worth noting that the split with TheBlaze was happening during the time that Crowder was lambasting The Daily Wire for their contracts.
Independent conservative media is a small pool which in huge part is why I don’t flinch when any of these folks are asked to sign NDAs. While these companies are friendly, they’re also competitors with a limited audience pool. And while these folks are notable names within the right leaning political sphere, they’re still big fish in a small pond.
Back to Landau’s new show. He and ¼ Black Garrett, who’s last name I can’t seem to track down, became co-hosts of Normal World at TheBlaze, a show that’s still on the air. ¼ Black, as he is known but feels ridiculous to type here, was a producer who joined Louder With Crowder years after Jared had left the position. When ¼ Black parted ways with Louder With Crowder, he did so very differently than Landau or Jared, recounting his experience in an interview as such —
I wanted to get out of Louder With Crowder in a very nice way. I loved the guys there. I loved the crew. I loved the audience. The Mug Clubbers are great people. I didn’t want to leave in a way, cause I’ve seen it happen before in the same show, where people will just disappear or it will be some kind of drama.
He even describes Crowder as “fully supportive” when referencing his departure from the show. But… you can see why the legal team for Louder With Crowder shows interest in knowing what correspondence was exchanged between these folks. Particularly because there are photos on Instagram of Jared Monroe, Dave Landau, and ¼ Black Garrett at Landau’s stand up comedy show from March 6, 2024 on Jared’s feed.
What I’ve ascertained from watching these interviews and videos is that what we’re seeing at Louder With Crowder is typical workplace drama. Some people love working there and others have horror stories and feel they weren’t treated fairly. What comes across in almost all of this is an ignorance in regard to corporate dealings and contracts. These folks are playing dress up as well run companies when really there's a vast lack of business acumen. The Daily Wire is included in that insult and one of the biggest offenders.
I can’t help but wonder how devastated some of these individuals would be if they came up against the legal dealings of an actual corporate giant like P&G or Apple. You think you’re drowning in strict contracts and legal filings now? Woah buddy. A well written contract protects both parties just as much as one structured to only benefit the employer signals that you should probably walk away. That knowledge comes from experience, which none of these people has, and typically a few skinned knees.
There’s a larger societal issue here of false expertise and people wanting to appear more knowledgeable than they are, often for profit. I’m referencing the bulk of the commentators who have weighed in with opinions and analysis of the matters at hand. An easy solution for this one does not exist. It’s up to us to improve our critical thinking and spot the holes in the arguments along with the posturing. Your personal intellect is the best combatant to the noise of ignorance. Not everyone with a megaphone has something important to say.
Which brings us back to Jared’s video. Can you believe that we’re less than a minute into what he had to say? Are you still following the plot of this Russian novel with all of its twists and turns? Last we left off, Jared was telling us that he was asked to turn over the documents for discovery and that he had not. He continues —
I did not for a few reasons. Number one, I have seen how this employer handles legal issues. I knew that once I opened the door to legal abuse, it would never ever be shut. This is how they operate. In fact, I’m not the only one who’s a current victim. My former employer is exploiting the legal system to abuse others right now.
All in the darkness fully knowing that the fear and the risks it takes to speak up. This kind of harassment at the hands of the powerful isn’t just designed to financially ruin somebody, it’s designed to cripple their soul. I wasn’t about to put my family — embark upon a journey down that road.
Presumably Jared is referencing Hilary Crowder’s divorce proceedings. We’ll address all of that, but you might need a different color of string for your conspiracy board if you want to keep this all straight.
Number two. I was not about to allow the privacy of my personal life, the trust I have with my friends, and the real relationships I have with them to be violated in such a vindictive and abusive manner. It simply was not going to happen.
I received the latest article of legal harassment on Friday, March 22, 2024. After a months now of litigation and exhausting even the court with relentless amendments to their Rule 202 Petition, my ex employer was finally rewarded their request for my oral deposition and any document of communication with my friends that they believe may provide any avenue to sue me or others. As it stands, they await my forced cooperation. I will not. I will continue to fight.
Yep. You signed an NDA and are running your mouth all over town about it. Louder With Crowder’s request is incredibly justified. Jared’s reluctance to relinquish the requested documents indicates that whatever exists in those text exchanges is likely incredibly damning to him or to others. If you didn’t want the privacy of your personal life violated, you shouldn’t have violated the NDA.
Now here’s the big question. Is… What was their entire reason for this harassment and the basis for their claims? These documents, an NDA.
I prepped you to know that the topic of conversation was an NDA. We’re over three minutes into Jared’s video, and this is the first time that he mentions it. Without knowing that this is in regards to a violated NDA, those preceding requests do sound a bit off base — utterly intentional and completely manipulative on his part. How many people are going to watch the first few minutes and then bail? It’s social media. I’m willing to hazard a lot.
Oh yeah there’s also the fact that if you signed an NDA and then made a video about the harshness of that NDA, you violated your contract. It’s that simple.
Some more context. I signed this separation agreement, an NDA containing a strict and very broad Non-Disparagement Clause many years ago. I voluntarily left my job after deciding I could no longer put myself or my growing family through the toxic and abusive work environment I had endured for years. This place was, and is to this day, a workplace rife with sexual misconduct, degeneracy, and aggression. The things I saw, the things done to me, the things I witnessed my employer do to others were disgusting, shocking, and utterly indefensible. I have the receipts.
Here’s the thing, if you wanted to tell the world about what was happening on the show, then don’t sign an NDA with a non-disparagement clause, wait six years, and then release the information when it is favorable to the wife of the person that you are disparaging.
Time for more fun with legal definitions!
I’m going to get ahead of a few things by defining a non-disparagement clause, showcasing that it very clearly does not violate the First Amendment because it is between private parties, and that they are not illegal and are commonly upheld. Here’s what Contracts Counsel has to say about them —
Non Disparagement Clause Defined
Non-disparagement clauses prevent parties from making derogatory comments about the other. In the context of employment, non-disparagement clauses can apply to the employer, employee, or both. These clauses typically define what the other cannot say and for how long after resignation or termination.Non Disparagement Clause Explained
Non-disparagement clauses don’t fall under the first amendment since injurious speech is not protected. For example, if an employee posts disparaging comments online after signing a non-disparagement agreement, the employer can sue for breach of contract.Employment Contracts
Non-disparagement clauses in employment contracts are legal as long as they meet the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requirements. If employees refuse to sign, employers can choose to discontinue employment.
Even without a non-disparagement clause in play, there’s still the consideration of libel and slander. Back to Cornell Law School for this one —
Libel
Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation; exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; or injures a person in their business or profession.Slander
A false statement, usually made orally, which defames another person. Unlike libel, damages from slander are not presumed and must be proven by the party suing.Defamation
Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements).
Notably, these do not fall under the umbrella of free speech — even though that still isn’t the issue at play here. Even if Jared had not signed an NDA with a non-disparagement clause, he could still be sued for libel or slander due to defamation. So if Jared wants to claim “a workplace rife with sexual misconduct, degeneracy, and aggression,” he needs to be able to back that up in a court of law, even without an NDA. Plus those accusations need to hold up to legal definitions, not cultural ones.
Skipping ahead for a minute, on April 1, 2024, Jared hired Matt Bruenig as his lawyer who appears to have filed unfair labor practice charges against Louder With Crowder.
Because why not burn down the castle, Jared’s lawyer has posted an excerpt from the contract between Jared Monroe and Louder With Crowder, we have the exact wording (presumably) of the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses —
[Confidentiality]
As part of this agreement, and as an additional material inducement to the Parties to enter this Agreement, Employer and Employee agree to keep the existence and terms of this Agreement confidential and to not disclose its provisions to anyone except immediate family members, tax advisors, legal counsel, or as required by law. Any further disclosure, other than as authorized herein shall constitute a breach of this Agreement.[Non-Disparagement]
Employer and Employee further agree not to take actions or make statements, written or oral, that would disparage or otherwise defame the goodwill or reputation of the other or his/its business, customers, clients, members, managers, predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, insurers, assigns, agents, attorneys, employees, shareholders, and representatives.– Matt Bruenig, “I Have Filed Unfair Labor Practice Charges Against Louder With Crowder”
The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. Chuck Palahniuk would be so glad to know that I’m quoting his book in this context.
If this is the type of legal representation that Jared has been securing all along, it’s no wonder that he’s in such hot water. The unfair labor practice charges that Bruenig is filing against Louder With Crowder rely on Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). To the best of my knowledge, Louder With Crowder is not a unionized show, which means that none of that statute applies to this scenario —
Interfering with Employee Rights (Section 7 & 8(a)(1))
Employees have the right to unionize, to join together to advance their interests as employees, and to refrain from such activity. It is unlawful for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights. For example, employers may not respond to a union organizing drive by threatening, interrogating, or spying on pro-union employees, or by promising benefits if they forget about the union.
Back to the video. In the next segment, Jared continues —
This all took a serious toll on my personal health to the point near the end of my tenure, the work environment had become so toxic that I had to be admitted into a heart hospital. After many tests, I was ultimately put on anti-anxiety medication. This condition was something new to me. I had no history of it prior to my employment there and have never been treated for it since.
Now when I decided to resign, my wife was pregnant with our first born child. It was a terrifying position to be put in, but I absolutely knew that I could not be the husband or the dad I was called to be for them in my current state. Something had to change, and if I couldn’t change my work environment, then it was time for me to remove myself from it.
Might it also have been brought on by the fact that you were about to have your first child and had just left your job and weren’t sure how you were going to support your family? Or are you certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that employment at Louder With Crowder was the only contributing factor? While this doesn’t really have any bearing on the free speech discussion, it demonstrates yet again the emotional charge Jared wishes to elicit from the viewer. He goes on —
I was fully aware that willfully resigning would mean I would forfeit any sort of severance. I trusted that God would provide. What I had not anticipated is how much it would cost me to quit. This is where my first experience with legal abuse began.
Starting from the day I delivered my notice of resignation, I was put on the phone with the company lawyers and the good cop bad cop coercion campaign to get my signature on an NDA was well underway. I was told many lies throughout this process. I immediately hired my own legal counsel, and by the grace of God understanding my predicament, he even agreed to work for half of his normal rate. Even so, the legal fees immediately began to pile up.
While this is being painted as incredibly unjust, this course of action is common in the entertainment industry and, to that end, predictable. When signing an NDA, one should always secure independent legal counsel. That’s how you avoid signing crap that you shouldn’t. Jared was young, and he was green. That doesn’t preclude his responsibility in these negotiations. If he found himself mature enough to sign the initial employment contract, he demonstrated his ability to enter into complex legal contracts. There’s no reason to let him off the hook for his confusion at departure simply because he found those contractual options less pleasing.
My former employer and his attorney argued I could not work in media anywhere in the world, and most certainly not in the United States for two years. This is not because I had voluntarily signed some sort of Non-Compete in my original employment agreements. It was because they decided a Non-Solicitation Clause, that was in said original agreement, would retroactively be interpreted as the broadest and strictest Non-Compete one could draft.
Where was his lawyer for all of this? He certainly wasn’t pulling his weight if he didn’t dispute the broadest interpretation of the original employment contract. This poor me victim status annoys the crap out of me. Jared was out negotiated. Deal with it. Louder With Crowder had more experience in these negotiations and better lawyers. None of that makes what they’re doing harassment or unconstitutional.
Even though Jared claims that he was coerced into signing the contract upon his departure, that doesn’t hold up. Coercion would have easily voided the NDA. His lawyer should have spotted that a mile away.
As for the non-solicitation clause, it essentially means that Jared couldn’t poach his former coworkers. Remember what I said about independent conservative media being a small pool? That’s why such a clause would be in there in the first place. Again, this is incredibly standard within entertainment and media contracts and beyond.
Jared’s portrayal of this contract doesn’t make sense. It appears that he’s bending it to fit his narrative and hoping that no one looks too closely. Oops. Guess I missed that memo.
They told me my Twitter accounts, another potential lifeline to future work which I’d owned and been the sole manager of since 2009, was to be turned over to them on the argument that it was somehow their ‘intellectual property’ now, presumably to keep me from working.
Even further, my former employer tried to claim that my personal production equipment, gear I had owned for years prior to working there, as ‘company property.’ After producing every receipt to validate my ownership, a vicious lie that I stole from the company was born and disseminated by my employer — by the way, breaking their side of this bogus mutual Non-Disparagement Agreement. I have those receipts as well.
There’s a lot that could be at play here and as manipulative as the framing of the rest of Jared’s claims are, I don’t trust that we’re hearing the full story. I’ve got nothing on the Twitter front. There are too many unknowns to form an opinion there. As for the equipment, was he reimbursed for it during his tenure at Louder With Crowder? Did he receive a stipend for production needs? There are some very legitimate reasons that the company might claim that the equipment was legally theirs. Based on the information given, we can’t know. Again I ask, where the heck was his lawyer?
The other possible explanation is that Louder With Crowder was offering a payout to retain the equipment that Jared had been using and that a price was included as part of the exit agreement. Jared is so evasive of the truth that I simply don’t trust him.
We know from Dave Landau’s interview with Michael Malice that after declining to sign an NDA with financial compensation, Landau still received a cash gift from Crowder with no strings attached — wow, what a monster. This leads me to believe that there’s additional information that Jared’s selectively not sharing.
Here’s the other thing. Louder With Crowder has an incredible lawyer on retainer, Bill Richmond. He regularly appeared on the show during the time that they were in the thick of it with YouTube censorship. Watch a few segments with him, and you’ll readily see that he’s on top of his game. While Richmond might not be the lawyer who handled these matters, it speaks to the caliber of legal advice that Louder With Crowder has retained.
Now, it’s entirely possible that Louder With Crowder is a horrific place to work. Believe it or not, that’s actually irrelevant to this conversation. Your time to negotiate better hours and higher compensation is upfront. You’re committed the minute you sign that contract. Yes, you can renegotiate as your position and responsibilities evolve, but there is no guarantee that your employer will budge from the original agreement. This is why contracts and understanding them before you sign is so important. And if there is actual abuse, that supersedes any of the contractual obligations.
Throughout this video, Jared continues to claim, “I have those receipts,” but they are never shown. If he’s willing to violate his NDA because getting this information out to the public is so important, why not show the supporting evidence? Does that evidence even exist? He continues —
All I simply wanted to do was peacefully leave. It was clear by my employer though that this was not only unacceptable, but that I needed to be punished for doing so. Being bullied on these terms and many more, fighting for my basic freedoms to leave and provide for my family immediately sent me into legal debt. I did not want to sign anything, mind you.
But the negotiations with my former employer left no question that without a signed NDA, my guaranteed silence, I would undoubtedly be harassed well into the future, no matter if their future claims against me for where I worked or what I did or what I said were legitimate or not. It didn’t matter. It would cost me thousands and thousands to fight back, and they knew that. I had to make a deal.
With nothing but a small savings account and my last paycheck, I had to accept the deal I could afford.
This last sentence is incredibly important and alludes to something I suspect that Jared is purposefully omitting — that he received consideration for signing the NDA. In a minute he’ll tell us that “I was not paid a single dollar for its consideration.” This may be true. However, something of value was exchanged. That’s an innate part of an NDA. Let’s go back to Lorraine Dindi at Legislate since we used her definition of an NDA originally —
Consideration
Like all other contracts, an NDA consists of an agreement by one party to fulfil an obligation to another in exchange for consideration (something of value). The obligation in an NDA is confidentiality i.e. the duty not to disclose the other’s confidential information once it has been made available to the recipient.
Something changed hands. The way it typically goes is, “Agree to our terms, and we’ll give you money. Don’t sign and we’ll pay out your last paycheck and part ways.” It’s incentive to sign. However, you can just as easily tell the company to shove it. Knowing that Jared has meager savings and a newborn on the way, the pressure to sign that he describes is likely one of self-imposed financial security.
One of the stipulations of an NDA is that the agreement must revolve around something of substantive value adequate to what is being asked of the signer. That does not have to be money. For instance, when one tours an Apple facility, he or she is required to sign an NDA prior to becoming privy to their emerging tech. In this case, the consideration is the knowledge garnered from a sneak peak at what’s to come for Apple. In exchange for that information, the signer is sworn to secrecy. So whatever Jared received has to be of commensurate value to what was being asked of him in return.
It’s also worth mentioning that being coerced into signing an NDA negates or forfeits the contract. Jared’s claims of being “bullied” into the contract are again misleading. If the consideration in the NDA were disproportionate, his first course of action would (should) be to have the court acknowledge that to sever the contract. This would be a minimal legal cost to him. Instead he’s choosing a public plea of sympathy.
FasterCapital has a really interesting document on “The Role of Consideration in Non Disclosure Agreements.” There’s one part in particular that I want to highlight. They cover a lot of misconceptions about NDAs, but this this section specifically addresses the role of consideration —
Some individuals mistakenly believe that consideration is not necessary if they are signing an NDA without the assistance of legal advice. However, this is not the case. Consideration is a fundamental element in the formation of a legally binding contract, including NDAs. Regardless of whether legal advice is sought or not, consideration is required to ensure the enforceability of the NDA in case of any breach or dispute.
Bear that in mind when you hear Jared state the following while waving his papers —
It’s very important to note here that… Where is it? This here. I was not paid a single dollar for its consideration.
Is there even anything on those pages? They look blank from the back, just saying. If you’re going to use them as a prop, at least do the Rush Limbaugh rustle into the microphone. Not once do we see what’s on the papers that Jared’s waving in front of him.
Anyway, I find that I don’t believe him about not being paid a single dollar, unless of course he’s evading the truth by being very literal — not a SINGLE dollar was paid but instead MULTIPLE dollars. If no money exchanged hands, what did he mean when he said that he, “had to accept the deal I could afford?” Some form of consideration changed hands.
Which brings me to what you might be asking next. What was the reason I did sign this and again as a man with his first child on the way, the small victory I got from it. The primary reason I signed the NDA was for a small carve out in the Non-Compete Clause which allowed me to freely seek employment using some of my skill sets at another specific company. At least I could feed my family.
That provision, however, was a lie. And upon starting my new job at the new said company, I was given another one of these, a cease and desist and was promptly unlawfully terminated from that position.
Welp. None of this adds up. Here’s what I suspect was actually happening. Jared started a job with the new company. Jared couldn’t keep his mouth shut about how awful it was to work at Louder With Crowder and wasn’t he happy to be away from all of them. The world of independent conservative media is small. Word got back to the folks at Louder With Crowder. They sent a cease and desist letter. The new employers didn’t want the headache and fired Jared. Guess what? They can legally do that.
Remember that the only illegal reasons for a termination are the following — an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or veteran status. Doesn’t it feel like months since we defined at-will employment? When Jared claims that he was unlawfully terminated, I’m skeptical that his claim is supported by any of these protected statuses.
I added thousands more to my legal debt trying to fight back. My wife was very pregnant by this time and without a financial safety net for groceries and a baby crib, much less a legal fund to file a countersuit, I simply had to let it go, trusting God had a plan.
To that point, I want to say that I’m happy to report that He did have a plan and what was intended for evil, God used for good. And it took me years to pay off my legal debt, but the story of God’s faithfulness in my life became a very large part of my testimony. And I am so grateful for the opportunities that he gave me, and that’s a story for another day. But back to this.
While my supposed Non-Compete expired after two years, unfortunately, the most egregious part of my NDA, the part that silences my free speech, has no expiration. While NDAs are classically used to protect trade secrets, unfortunately in the entertainment industry, they are too often used to protect disgusting, unlawful activity and many forms of abuse. We see examples of this all the time. Powerful people and their attorneys routinely use NDAs to silence victims in order to remain powerful people.
I’m with Harmeet Dhillon on this one when she quips —
Now, Harmeet, Managing Partner at Dhillon Law Group, was referring to the parties at Diddy’s house, but the legal tip still applies. NDAs can’t protect against illegal activities. Sorry, Jared. And then he shifts gears into his unfounded rantings about the limitations on his free speech. Here’s what he has to say —
Free speech matters. It matters a lot to me, and it’s not just a t-shirt slogan. It really matters and these kinds of NDAs right here stemming from this are unquestionably unconstitutional.
Want to know how I know that the NDA is not in any way violating his free speech? That speech isn’t being restricted by the government. Oops. Missed that one, Jared. I’ll go into greater detail on this but let’s make it to the end of his rantings —
I will not live with the burden of this unconstitutional NDA over my head for the rest of my life, especially when information I have can be used to aid other victims to escape their own abusive situations, which is the context for which this former employer feels they ‘caught me’ breaking my agreement.
Let me be clear. What I’m afraid of is legal harassment in perpetuity, not the truth. Only one side of this ordeal is spending a fortune to hide truth and punish anyone who dares speak up for themselves or other victims.
Again, this is presumably a reference to the divorce proceedings between Hilary Crowder and Steven Crowder that involve Louder With Crowder as part of the estate.
While I will not give in to the harassment by my former employer, I have to recognize that this process has already become unbearably expensive, not only because of the general expense of the legal process, but because my former employer has seemingly unlimited wealth and resources to gleefully spend punishing powerless people.
I tried to handle legal fees on my own these last months, and the fees have already reached the tens of thousands of dollars with no resolution in sight. Unstopped, this type of legal abuse could go on for years and years and quickly escalate to hundreds of thousands of dollars as I fight to protect myself and my family.
I cannot put my wife and my children through this, not again. I cannot be bound to an unconstitutional NDA like this forever. Protecting my family means finding a path that doesn’t leave us in financial ruin, and we are simply out of funds. And I have no other option but to ask for help.
You know what this video is? An infomercial. There might as well be emaciated children or starving puppies on the screen with a voiceover asking you to donate. It will only cost you a dollar a day to change a life.
I’m asking for donations for two reasons. Number one, obviously to help with the financial burden I’ve already accrued with this legal matter right here. That’s taking care of… That matter is priority number one as I’m going further and further into debt with each passing day.
The second reason I’m asking for financial assistance though is to proactively address my unconstitutional, anti-free speech NDA, which is the basis for all of their claims against me. The simplest resolution here would be for my ex employer to release me from the NDA.
No. The simplest solution would be for you to stop violating the NDA you signed in good faith.
Give me and my fellow ex employees the same free speech they publicly championed for every other American.
Let me state this in no uncertain terms. Louder With Crowder lacks the capacity to violate Jared Monroe’s free speech. How can I be so certain? Because free speech by definition is “the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government.” THE GOVERNMENT. Who am I kidding? Let’s look at the entirety of the definition in the words of Cornell Law School —
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government. The First Amendment protects this right by prohibiting Congress from making laws that would curtail freedom of speech.Even though freedom of speech is protected from infringement by the government, the government is still free to restrict speech in certain circumstances. Some of these circumstances include: Obscenity and Indecency, Defamation, Incitement, Fighting words.
While the public has a right to freedom of speech when it comes to the U.S. government, the public does not have this right when it comes to private entities. Companies and private employers are able to regulate speech on their platforms and within their workplace since the First Amendment only applies to the government.
If you do click through to the entirety of their explanation, know that I think that their analysis of free speech as it relates to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter is incomplete since it fails to address the protection those companies receive from Section 230.
It’s worth highlighting one particular sentence in that explanation, ”While the public has a right to freedom of speech when it comes to the U.S. government, the public does not have this right when it comes to private entities.” There is no expectation of freedom of speech within private entities. Louder With Crowder is a private entity therefore Jared Monroe has no right to freedom of speech as it pertains to them. This entirely debunks his claim that the NDA is unconstitutional.
This all comes back to contract law. None of it has a thing to do with free speech. But Jared is not convinced —
But I can almost guarantee you that will not happen. I’ve already witnessed them spend unfathomable amounts of money in other cases to protect their double life and secrets.
No more darkness.
That’s why beyond my current burden I face from my ex employer’s legal abuse, I will be using these donations to fight back and file a counter motion, placing my unconstitutional NDA before a judge to have it dissolved in its entirety. I want my First Amendment rights back.
Jared has as tenuous a grasp on free speech and the First Amendment as Ben Shapiro has on the Overton Window. Louder With Crowder can’t return something they never had the power to take away. It’s been a few pages since we took a peek at the First Amendment. Should we do it again?
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Did Congress hop into this ordeal when I wasn’t looking? It’s possible. A cute critter ran in and started unraveling my conspiracy balls of yarn part way through the video. It was too adorable to stop. I jest, but in all seriousness, there’s a real danger to diluting and misusing the term free speech. When ACTUAL free speech is at stake, the outcries will carry less weight.
Let’s revisit the interview that RFK Jr. recently had on CNN. In it he reminds us of the importance and reason that the First Amendment comes first —
The First Amendment, Erin, is the most important amendment. Adams and Hamilton and Madison said — we put the guarantee of freedom in the First Amendment because all other Constitutional Rights depend on it. If you have a government that can silence its opponent, it has license for any atrocity.
Undermine the First Amendment and the freedom of speech that accompanies it, and everything else goes to hell in a handbasket. There’s a reason that it’s first. I’m pissed about the false accusations of free speech infringement on the grounds that there’s a very real threat that people are largely ignoring. Redirect your focus there.
Back to Jared —
I want to stop this cycle of abuse, and I want truth to be known. This takes incredible resources I simply don’t have. Truthfully, I don’t know how much money this will take, probably much more than my current goal is, but every penny, every penny I do have left from your donations will go toward helping other ex employees, dear friends of mine, fight back and escape their identical situations with the same employer.”
To accept donations, I’ve set up a GoFundMe, and to make it easy you can go to FreeJaredMonroe.com. It will take you there. Please share this message. I know so many of you cannot afford to help, but simply retweeting this post helps so much. And for any of you who can help big or small, public or anonymous, I, my wife, and my children thank you from the bottoms of our hearts.
And I do just want to say this. If you too are or have been a victim of such abuse, for whatever it’s worth, know that I see you and I hear you and I encourage you to be courageous. No more darkness. Victims of the cruel and powerful deserve a voice. Truth is the sword that slays the monsters, so let there be truth. Free speech matters.
We made it to the end. At the time of publishing this piece, Jared had raised $93,757 of his $100,000 goal and received 1.9K donations on the Free Jared Monroe GoFundMe. And good for him. If people want to donate because they’re compelled by his story, that’s their prerogative. Did he secure those donations under false pretenses? Definitely. But it’s also an individual’s responsibility to see through the facade.
I’ve laid ALL of this out so that I can emphatically say, this is NOT a violation of free speech. Not one inch.
If you walk away from Jared’s video having retained one thing, let it be that NDAs are optional, not obligatory. Jared is using the term “free speech” as a shiny distraction of what’s really going on. In signing an NDA, you haven’t given up your free speech rights, but you’ve agreed to limit your speech. Voluntarity. If I haven’t made it clear, let me stress again that an NDA is a binding contract. That has legal ramifications.
You can still criticize politicians or a policy that your local township holds. That’s what the First Amendment was written to protect. It’s still doing that. When you jump out of the world of politics or religion, you’re no longer in the world of free speech.
But wait! Things get even more convoluted.
We should pause to take a deep breath and go get some fresh air.
A Gnarly Divorce
On March 27, 2024, the day following Jared Monroe posting his video to Twitter, Gerald Morgan, the CEO of Louder With Crowder, released a response video titled “Here’s what you don’t know…” that introduces us to the drawn out and highly volatile divorce proceedings between Hilary and Steven Crowder, the extortion charges that Louder With Crowder is filing against Hilary Crowder, and the lawsuit that had not previously existed that Louder With Crowder filed that morning against Jared. This whole thing is a mess to say the least.
Cards on the table. My bias, based on events that have transpired in my own life, is to believe what Gerald is saying in this video. Additionally, his body language and demeanor support this. I also happen to think that you don’t invite the world to peruse your court documents in a rebuttal if you don’t think that they can stand up to scrutiny, particularly when your company already has a target on its back. Everything that Gerald shows on the screen can be found here, unlike Jared’s claims around his “receipts,” that may or may not be blank pieces of paper. As an aside, I’m really looking forward to the turn of phrase “I have the receipts,” fading from our lexicon.
None of my personal inclinations around this matter change the butchering of language and misinterpretation of contract law and false definition of free speech from Jared in his appeal. If I thought that Jared was insufferable (which I do) but made some solid arguments (which I don’t), I would state them clearly for you. As it stands, I find his dramatics to be a tactic used to obscure his lack of a valid claim.
We’re going to blow through a lot of the details on what Gerald lays out in his video because it’s mainly about the Crowder divorce. Even if Jared did have incredibly damning information about what transpired between the couple, none of that is an issue of free speech, even as it potentially relates to an NDA. These are civil matters. It’s impossible to know what truly transpired between the Crowders because we’re not on the inside of their marriage.
Going into this video, notice the difference in demeanor between Gerald and Jared. Gerald is clearly riled, but it’s not meant to play to your emotions. If anything, he’s actively trying to dial it down so that it isn’t a distraction to his message, quite the opposite of Jared.
Gerald opens by saying —
I just want to say off the top that none of this had to happen. None of it. Didn’t have to be this way at all. We didn’t choose this. It was chosen for us. In fact, as I’ll tell you in a few minutes, we went to great lengths to give people the ability to do the right thing, to honor their agreements, and to do what they said they were going to do. Unfortunately they chose a different path.
For the last year and a half, everything you’ve seen in the public eye has been part of a well orchestrated plan. What is that plan? “To assimilate damaging PR assets and wage a negative publicity campaign against Steven.”
He then lays out a timeline of events complete with text messages and quotes supporting the assertion that everything that is unfolding in the public eye is, “To assimilate damaging PR assets and wage a negative publicity campaign against Steven.” I’ve added a few more events for clarity and context as we move through what has transpired. I’ll also incorporate the recent hit piece aimed at Andrew Huberman and relate the two as they pertain to the legacy media establishment and their hatred for independent journalists at the end.
• November 9, 2022 | Message from Hilary’s father in a group text exchange to the family explaining the, “Type of team I want… They understand right wing media -They are familiar with who steven is and that world and the things that would destabilize him.” Gerald points out that destabilization was the plan from the beginning.
• December 15, 2022 | Steven Crowder announces that he and Mug Club are leaving TheBlaze.
• January 17, 2023 | Steven Crowder releases a video chronicling the term sheet from The Daily Wire.
• January 18, 2023 | The Daily Wire responds to Steven’s video.
• October 27, 2023 | Louder With Crowder files original Rule 202 Petition against Jared Monroe that Jared mentioned in his video.
• October 30, 2023 | Louder With Crowder sends a cease and desist to Jared Monroe.
Gerald stresses that, “At that time, October 30, 2023, all Jared had to do was respond in writing saying that he was going to knock off what he was doing. He was going to stop violating his agreement that he voluntarily entered into. He chose not to. Legal fees associated with writing us a letter would have been minimal, if any at all.”
• December 14, 2023 | Louder With Crowder adds one amendment to the Rule 202 Petition.
• February 17, 2023 | Hilary Crowder & Jared Monroe meet in Atlanta — as depicted by one of the following images shared by Gerald.
• March 8, 2023 | Steven Crowder announces Rumble Partnership
• March 15, 2024 | The Rule 202 Petition expires, releasing Jared from the document that would have compelled him to give a deposition.
• March 21, 2024 | Mediation between Hilary and Steven Crowder begins.
• March 26, 2024 | Jared releases his #FreeJaredMonroe video.
Jared, throughout his video, uses terms such as “counter motion” and “legal harassment.” This was part of his premise for raising $100,000 through GoFundMe.
According to Gerald’s response video, no active lawsuits existed at the time of Jared’s video release. Meaning, Jared was not being sued by Louder With Crowder and therefore had no grounds for a counter motion. It would appear that Jared was fundraising for a lawsuit that did not exist. If we’re generous, we could say that perhaps Jared was raising money for a future lawsuit that he wished to file, but that is not what he stated.
Either way, it brings into question Jared’s use of legal terms. This is further driven home by comments that Jared’s lawyer has made in the following days saying that Jared is not a lawyer and does not have a firm grasp on legal terms. Okay… then we can’t trust the accuracy of anything that Jared describes in his video because the words might not mean what he thinks they mean.
• March 27, 2024 | Louder With Crowder files a lawsuit against Jared Monroe. One had not existed previously.
At this point in the video, Gerald very passionately asserts the following —
I hate being in this position, guys. It gives me no pleasure to go down this road. I am being forced to go down this road by their actions to defend this company, to defend the over thirty employees that work for this company. I am not a guy who picks a fight.
But if you tell me by your actions, by ignoring easy off ramps, easy opportunities to do the right thing, that you are not going to stop coming after me and coming after this company and coming after the employees that work here and that put blood, sweat, and tears into this business. If you tell me my choice is to fight you or let them be taken out, I am absolutely going to step up and fight for them. Every time.
One aspect that is important to understand is that the divorce proceedings between Hilary and Steven Crowder impact the business, Louder With Crowder, because it is a primary asset of the estate. As such, if in fact Hilary is intentionally draining company funds through legal fees, then her actions impact the entire company — in which case Gerald is completely justified in his anger.
Next Gerald builds the framework to substantiate why Louder With Crowder is suing Hilary Crowder, her family, and her media representatives for tortious interference and their extortion conspiracy scheme. It’s been a minute since we’ve needed to define a legal definition. Here’s another, and we’re back to Cornell Law School for the explanation —
Tortious Interference
Tortious interference is a common law tort allowing a claim for damages against a defendant who wrongfully interferes with the plaintiff's contractual or business relationships.
The following are the documents that Gerald shares on screen, all of which are available at Louder With Crowder and posted on Gerald’s Twitter feed (not quite the same as the claim that Jared made with his undisclosed papers) —
• Hilary’s father’s group text articulating the type of team that he wants in order to “destabilize” Crowder.
• A photo of Hilary and Jared together in Atlanta with a binder labeled “How He Changed My Mind” (likely a book proposal) sitting on the table in front of them.
• A text exchange between Jared and Hilary in which Jared says, “Any scenario where Hilary and I team up is the end of him [Steven]. It’s his worst nightmare. Watch the real fear enter his eye when Tim asks the question.”
• Another text from Jared to Hilary stating, “I just don’t want him anywhere near those kids. That really really disturbs me.”
• A text from Hilary to her family attesting that Steven’s financial offer was serious but that she wanted more freedom when it came to custody of the kids.
• A message from Hilary’s father articulating how to move forward in the divorce proceedings in which Gerald specifically highlighted the line, “The longer the divorce proceedings go on the worse the outcome for SC,” referring to Steven Crowder.
• A court document detailing that, “Mrs. Crowder [Hilary] then intentionally deleted all other footage that depicted the marital home, as well as all footage from their vacation lake residence, while under express orders from the Court barring such actions.”
• Gerald continues by revisiting the Ring camera footage that surfaced in the media on April 27, 2023 (via a Substack article by Yashar Ali) showing an argument between Hilary and Steven Crowder that sparked many to label the exchange abuse.
What we learn from the documents shared onscreen is that Hilary Crowder deleted over 2,000 hours of additional footage on the home camera as well as at the lake house when a court expressly barred her from doing so, with an additional 8,000 hours that were never handed over. We’re going to revisit a few more elements of this event in a moment. The players involved overlap more than you would expect.
• The next issue raised by Gerald is Hilary Crowder’s claim of hardship followed by screenshots of the $25K monthly payment Hilary is receiving from Steven. That’s $300,000 a year with no taxes withheld. All of her legal fees for the divorce proceedings are paid by the estate, meaning the revenue from Louder With Crowder.
This is also when Gerald mentions that, “Hilary hired entertainment superstar lawyer Bryan Freedman as part of her PR attack against Steven.” He additionally addresses Freedman’s representation of Trevor Bauer’s false accuser and that Yashar Ali, author of the previously mentioned article, is also represented by Freeman. More on this when we address the Ring camera footage.
At this point you’ve realized that this is a nasty divorce. It’s worth remembering that a number of the documents that we see on screen are submitted by Crowder’s lawyers to substantiate his position so we do need to evaluate them in context. They’re meant to be damning against Hilary. Again, I’m not here to weigh in on the divorce proceedings. Rather, I wish to continue to illustrate that none of this drama has a thing to do with freedom of speech. That said, if this next document is true, it’s a low blow.
• A screenshot of legal filings documenting Hilary’s attempt to have Joe Lewis, Crowder’s dog, removed on the claim that Joe Lewis was/is dangerous. Additionally an affidavit from the previous owner was secured stating that Hilary’s claim was false.
My two cents here — size of dog does not equate to a threat. Obviously having grown up with Great Pyrenees, I can speak to this one first hand. If you’ve ever seen Joe Lewis, a Dogo Argentino, on the show, it’s clear that he has an incredibly mellow temperament even if not all dogs of his breed share those characteristics. It’s a bit like saying that all Pit Bulls are viscous because some are bred and raised to be. Nope.
• A photograph of a sweet potato mailed to Steven Crowder’s personal residence with a quote from the Ring camera footage written on it in marker.
A lot of the coverage is missing the main point about this tuber. Due to Crowder’s outrageous nature and investigative journalism, he has a lot of enemies. For this reason, he goes to great lengths, according to Gerald, to maintain a private and unlisted residence where he and his twins reside. This is incredibly common with public figures. The threat of receiving the sweet potato was not the item itself nor the message scribbled on it. The threat was the knowledge of an unlisted address that had been leaked.
Gerald closes by saying, “NDAs are a normal part of doing business. You sign an NDA voluntarily. Jared signed his voluntarily and then breached it.” I credit Gerald and the Louder With Crowder team with refocusing the issue as one of employment and contract terms along with divorce and extortion, not one of free speech. Gerald rightly states, “I’m not restricting your speech, Jared. I’m simply asking you to honor your agreement that you voluntarily entered into.” Yep.
The topic of Hilary Crowder’s alleged extortion campaign is revisited with Gerald reiterating that —
Hilary is behind this entire plan, “To assimilate the damaging PR assets and wage a negative publicity campaign against Steven.” I’ll say it again. That is the plan. And maybe it’s because she’s taking bad advice. I don’t know.
This brings us back to the footage from the Ring camera, the six-degrees of Bryan Freedman, and a somewhat unrelated but related riff on Andrew Huberman. To understand what’s happening currently, we need to rewind to April of 2023.
You still with me? Time for a red string run. Our conspiracy board is about to go crazy.
A Coordinated Hit? Quite Plausible.
There’s an awful lot of coincidence at play here, enough to prompt some eyebrow raising. In many ways, this aspect reads as simply more drama. But I actually think there’s more merit to crying foul on free speech here than there is in any other element of what’s currently in the media cycle. Why? If true, which remains for the court to decide, this is a coordinated hit on Steven Crowder and Louder With Crowder to ultimately remove him and his show from the air based on his political views. We’ve seen that playbook.
Crowder is part of a growing number of independent media personalities whose careers have been put in jeopardy because those in the legacy media establishment are threatened by them. We saw the employees of Spotify try to oust Joe Rogan because he voiced opinions with which they disagreed. Sometimes the attack comes from an individual, but it can also be part of a larger media effort. It’s awfully coincidental that a single piece of information can hit the news cycle at exactly the same time across multiple outlets and multiple platforms. Hint: Those are coordinated and planned.
Plus, there’s a tried and true method of maligning someone’s character when there are no substantive objections to his work. “I don’t like what he says,” doesn’t count.
Which brings me to Andrew Huberman, neuroscientist and podcaster. Yes, podcaster. What does he have to do with any of this? Not a thing. Well, at least not directly. A hit piece on Huberman titled “Andrew Huberman’s Mechanisms of Control: The Private and Public Seductions of the World’s Biggest Pop Neuroscientist” came to my attention by way of
as I was listening to his poignant remarks on the hypocrisy of Ben Shapiro.Greenwald’s video, titled “Huberman Hit Piece Exposes Corrupt Media Priorities,” made my clickbaity little heart go all flutter because it ties directly into what I’m discussing about the shiny objects of distraction the mainstream media is using to redirect the public’s attention. After explaining his perception of the decentralization of fame (with which I agree), Greenwald articulates what’s really at play here —
They saw somebody who is very successful… and I guess they decided he was an ideological enemy. They set out to destroy him. They dug into his personal life and really found nothing. They published it anyway. These people are sick and evil.… simply out of resentment that they built a popular and independent platform that they can’t control.
That’s the crux of it — a resentment over what they can’t control.
As for the article itself, does New York Magazine not have anything better to cover than Andrew Huberman’s sex life and monogamy or lack thereof? Sadly I cannot recoup the time that I spent reading about the multiple women that Huberman was dating and with whom he was or wasn’t having consensual, unprotected sex. I get it. I get it. Kerry Howley, the author, doesn’t think that Huberman is a standup guy, but this is meant to read like he was receiving blowjobs in the Oval Office from an intern or swapping moments on a casting couch in exchange for Oscars. It has no business garnering the attention it is receiving, much less a cover story.
While looking for the cover photo from this March 25, 2024 piece, because yes, this was the lead article in the most recent issue, I came across this tweet which perfectly sums it up.
And while what is happening with Steven Crowder isn’t exactly analogous to the hit piece on Andrew Huberman, you have to wonder if the legacy media has a target on his back because he threatens their tenuous hold on what little power they have left.
Conjecture isn’t actually necessary. Louder With Crowder and Crowder himself have been a consistent target by YouTube for deplatforming and censorship since 2019 since the Vox Adpocalypse. During a livestream of the 2020 election results, Facebook pulled the Louder With Crowder broadcast without any explanation or justification. Crowder had exceeded CNN’s viewership, along with out performing all of the mainstream news outlets by the thousands. Coincidence that they’re trying to limit his reach?
And you know what? That’s an actual affront to free speech.
So to think that there might be a coordinated effort aimed at Louder With Crowder and Crowder himself is not a stretch. I, for one, am willing to give Crowder a bit of leeway as the full story plays out. That’s my premise to the footage from the Ring camera that went viral last year. There’s more than meets the eye.
Footage of Steven Crowder having a verbal fight with his almost eight month pregnant wife surfaced via leaked footage in April of 2023 in a Substack article by Yashar Ali titled “Exclusive: Video Reveals Steven Crowder Emotionally Abusing Wife. In Statement, Hilary Crowder's Family Says She Hid His Emotionally Abusive Behavior For Years.”
I’m not here to condone or defend Crowder’s actions. Again, let’s watch that one play out in court instead of the court of public opinion. My initial reaction was that we were being shown a very selective picture of the incident. Based on the thousands of hours of deleted footage, I’m inclined to think that I was right.
This is where the intersections get interesting.
Yashar Ali, the author of the article leaking the footage, and Hilary Crowder share a lawyer — Bryan Freedman. Having never heard of Freedman until digging into all of this, I was curious who some of his other clients might be since everyone kept referring to him as a high powered entertainment lawyer.
Freedman represented Tucker Carlson in his separation with Fox as well as Don Lemon in his CNN departure according to both Business Insider and the BBC. Other notable clients include: Megyn Kelly, Chris Cuomo, Julia Roberts, Robert Downey Jr., and Kevin Spacey. Kind of a different echelon of celebrity. It makes you wonder why Freedman took Hilary Crowder as a client when she doesn’t share that level of status.
Freedman was also the lawyer for professional baseball player Trevor Bauer’s false accuser, a point that Gerald makes in his response video. If, like me, this case slipped by your radar, here’s a brief recap. In the Spring of 2021, Lindsey Hill accused Bauer of multiple incidents of sexual assault. Based on the accusations alone, Bauer was at the mercy of MLB’s disciplinary policy under which, “Commissioner Rob Manfred can decide if a player is in violation and an appropriate sanction,” regardless of court findings, according to a Sportico article.
Bauer received a 324-game suspension from MLB in April of 2022, losing $37.5 million from his pending 3-year, $102 million deal. As reported by ESPN, Bauer sued Hill for defamation in April of 2022, and she countersued for sexual battery four months later. The suit never went to trial and all parties settled in civil court with no money exchanging hands and no findings of confirmed assault. All allegations have been dropped. Bauer is currently playing in the Japanese leagues as his marred reputation has precluded him from MLB opportunities.
Unfortunately it seems like there is no shortage of stories like these in the press currently. In my opinion, it’s the pendulum swing back from the overzealous reach of #MeToo where women could do no wrong and in which people repeated the moronic banner, “Believe all women.” I was once a teenage girl. Girls are vicious. They lie. Not all women grow out of that.
Imagine if the women in the Huberman article claimed that his infidelity was a form of abuse. That’s not out of the realm of possibility as language and terms continue to be redefined with zero regard for their actual definitions. These are career ending allegations. If you wonder why I harp on what terms actually mean, this is why.
By the time the law catches up to the claims, the news cycle has moved on and lives are already ruined. There are absolutely women who were and are abused stepping forward to share their stories. Recognize that mixed with them are also opportunists looking for a pay day. You can’t unring the bell once the lie is out there.
Former talent agent, Ari Jacob, put a few more pieces of the puzzle together for me, regarding who might be pulling the strings behind all of the Crowder mess — allegedly. In her video assessing Jared Monroe’s NDA, she revealed that UTA (United Talent Agency) is also represented by Bryan Freedman (in a case where UTA is accused of defamation), Yashar Ali and Hilary Crowder’s lawyer, and went on to explained that —
Yashar Ali is notorious for taking people out on behalf of his friends. I don’t know what UTA’s involvement is in this. All I can say is that I know at one point Glenn Beck was represented by UTA and then I believe that UTA bought the agency that represented him. Mediaite has been going after Crowder several times. Mediaite is owned by Dan Abrams, also on the UTA website. Well maybe Big Hollywood doesn’t like Steven Crowder.
Discovering that the owner of Mediate, Dan Abrams, is represented by UTA led me down a Mediate rabbit hole. There is no shortage of articles disparaging Steven Crowder. They even neatly amass all of them for you in one spot. Having now read a number of these articles, I still hold that there’s more to the story than we, the public, know and that none of this is a free speech issue. This reading did reveal why Jared Monroe’s GoFundMe was set at $100k. That’s the penalty for violating the NDA.
As for the rest of Ari Jacob’s comments, while it is unclear if Glenn Beck is currently represented by UTA, he was a major addition to their roster in 2014 when UTA acquired N.S. Bienstock. You may also remember that two former Louder With Crowder employees, who are friends of Jared Monroe, left Louder With Crowder to host Normal World, their own sketch comedy show on TheBlaze, Beck’s platform. Jared is a regular guest on their show. Small world.
Funny that TheBlaze is also the platform that Crowder was leaving under strained relations when his feud with The Daily Wire hit the airwaves. You have to wonder how much of this is a jockeying for viewership and fame.
Oh, by the way, Yashar Ali, who wrote the article that leaked the footage from the Ring camera, is also represented by UTA. He even lists it in his Twitter bio.
And if all of that didn’t call into question the validity of the footage from the Ring camera, here’s how Jacob described Yashar Ali —
This person is hated — not only not liked by the Right, he’s really not liked by the Left. You’ve got to be a pretty big scumbag in my opinion for the Getty family to not like you. For Kathy Griffin to not like you. This guy is destitute. This guy is the low of the low.
This Los Angeles Magazine 2021 feature on him — The Curious Rise of Twitter Power Broker Yashar Ali: In just a few years, he's become one of the most fearsome media figures in the country—mobilizing his vast Twitter following to promote his famous friends and punish foes. Can his own past survive similar scrutiny? — reads like a mashup of Anna Sorokin (aka Anna Delvey) and House Inhabit. Celebrities seem to both love and fear him. Either way, he appears to wield influence.
One other assertion that continues to puzzle me is Candance Owens claiming that Steven Crowder inserted her into his divorce. It seems safe to say that this comment is simply further clout chasing on her part. It didn’t stop her from lambasting Crowder in her video — “Steven Crowder Is A Monster - Change My Mind.” I have to wonder if it’s just “coincidental” that Candace is claiming the same free speech violations around her separation with The Daily Wire that Jared is claiming with Louder With Crowder.
Have we learned nothing from cases like Depp v Heard or Trever Bauer’s? All of this is tried in the court of public opinion and the media before it ever reaches a legal outcome. And that bell can’t be unrung. People are prone to snap judgements and have long moved on by the time facts surface.
I’ll leave you with this — if there’s a common thread, follow it.
Goodbye, First Amendment
My main assertion in all of this mess is that greater than any of these interpersonal dramas between the folks at The Daily Wire or Louder With Crowder are some very real and very active threats to free speech that are being obscured by the unimportant. And if all of these players are tied up with their middle school theatrics, none of them is actively addressing what’s actually happening to our country.
You want true violations of freedom of speech? There is no shortage of them in recent years — Section 230, Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board, the Twitter Files, Zuckerberg’s election interference, the TIkTok Ban Bill, the Ivermectin lie, the imprisonment of January 6 protestors, the DOJ silencing parents at school board meetings and labeling them terrorists, the suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the list goes on — which is what makes it all the more interesting that the conservative news cycle is so eager to shower time and attention on interpersonal politics over legitimate threats to our liberty.
And by the way, when did we stop referring to it as “freedom of speech” and truncated it to “free speech?” Yes, it’s taken me this long in typing the term repeatedly to finally ask this. That’s how convoluted and Orwellian the word shifting really is. Repeat something erroneous one thousand times and people forget the original meaning. Even decades ago, James Madison shared that sentiment —
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.
– James Madison
Think about when Madison said that and how slowly the news moved. The pace of life was glacial compared to what we’re living now. People could digest a point. It wasn’t a thirty second news story popping up on your phone between recipes and ads and dancing cats. Yet even at the turn of the eighteenth century, this was a concern.
Doubly concerning is that everything labeled as misinformation turned out to be true. By the time the government and the media reversed their stance on each issue, those lies were ingrained in the public. What’s more, we’re looking at a mounting trend that the government will be able to censor anything they don’t like under the guise of a national emergency. Guess that means we’ll see a lot more national emergencies pop up in the coming years.
So yeah, I’m worried, to put it mildly. You should be too.
You made it to the end! There should be a toy surprise waiting for you. There isn’t, but thanks for reading. Might I be so bold as to suggest that you subscribe if you haven’t already.
As always, I want you to draw your own conclusions. Everything that I’ve watched, even those that weren’t directly linked and referenced in this piece, can be found here. No promises that YouTube won’t pull something.
Based on the length of this piece, it seems likely that I’ve inadvertently omitted or overlooked something. I’m happy to take up those discussions in the comments.
