Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

State, Cities Debate Reparations For Black Americans; Justices To Hear Case Of Web Designer Opposed To Same-Sex Marriage; Sex Sells, But What's Cost? CNN Podcast Dives Into "OnlyFans." Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired December 05, 2022 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:32:27]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back to CNN THIS MORNING.

Coming up, the Supreme Court. The justices will hear arguments today in the case of a website designer who refuses to make websites for same-sex marriages because of her religious belief. We'll take you inside the high court for that.

We are also hearing for the first time from the surviving roommates as the killer of four University of Idaho students remains at large this morning.

And Paul Pelosi was there last night in attendance at the Kennedy Center Honors, his first public appearance since being brutally attacked in his home.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: But first, this is a very interesting debate that America is having right now -- whether to descendants of slaves should be paid reparations.

Well, today, Providence, Rhode Island is taking a key step in releasing funds for its program. The city's mayor approved a $10 million budget plan just last month after more than two years of research. The program does not include direct cash payments to descendants of enslaved people. We'll talk about that. Instead, the money will fund initiatives aimed at closing the racial wealth and equity gaps, including investment in -- investments in minority-owned businesses.

Some states and cities are considering other ways to tackle reparations. California, for example, has a task force looking into whether to handle the funds like Providence or to give direct payments to eligible individuals. A member of the group told The New York Times, "We are looking at reparations on a scale that is the largest since Reconstruction."

So, the massive effort, just after the Civil War, to reorganize southern states and integrate newly-freed enslaved Americans into society.

So then, how do you articulate this? How do you put it into perspective? How do you calculate and pay reparations? And who exactly would be eligible? Those are massive questions.

Experts have tried to estimate the amount -- the amounts of money enslaved people should have been paid but the numbers -- they vary widely here, OK? They go as low as $17 billion to as high as almost $5 trillion. But the most often quoted figure is even higher at $97 trillion.

That said, documentation of ancestry can be incredibly difficult to find, so it is a problem if reparations are limited to descendants of the enslaved. Some argue that limiting reparations to the descendants of -- descendants of enslaved people ignores the weight systemic discrimination has had on Black wealth in the aftermath.

Now, according to the Brookings Institute, the median wealth of a white household in 2020 was about $188,000. That is 7.8 times more than the average Black household at about $24,000.

[07:35:10]

In 2019, the homeownership rate for white Americans was about 73 percent compared to 42 percent for Black Americans. And that is before even discussing whether reparations are more effective as direct payments or as investments available to Black communities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. DR. FREDERICK DOUGLASS HAYNES III, PASTOR, FRIENDSHIP-WEST BAPTIST CHURCH: It's not as simple as just giving a check. We have to also look at reconstructing systems so that we have equality of opportunity. There's so much that goes into the concept of reparation.

EDWIN DRIVER, FIRST BLACK PROFESSOR HIRED AT UMASS AMHERST: How does the total landscape change? That's really my question. And you remember the old word tokenism -- and I don't think this is meant to be that at all. I'm not saying that. But it could turn out to be that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So with me now, Chenjerai Kumanyika, assistant professor of journalism in the Arthur L. Carter Institute of Journalism at NYU. And CNN political commentator Errol Louis, a columnist at New York Magazine and the host of the "You Decide" podcast. So good to have both of you on. Thank you very much. Good morning to you.

CHENJERAI KUMANYIKA, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, NYU'S ARTHUR L. CARTER INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISM: Good morning.

LEMON: I'm kind of surprised that we're even at a point now where we're discussing this as something that is seriously happening. What say you, Errol?

ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, COLUMNIST, NEW YORK MAGAZINE, HOST, "YOU DECIDE WITH ERROL LOUIS" PODCAST: Well, I think it's long overdue obviously, and it's really fascinating to see what the results of the George Floyd protests have brought. Because that was really the spur I think for this latest round of coming to terms with it. So many different institutions and jurisdictions are trying to sort of

figure this stuff out. You have places where it's relatively contained, like Georgetown University where they had, in the 19th century, sold off 272 enslaved people to pay off some debts. And they now have said that the descendants of those particular people can go tuition-free and they're going to put some money into a fund for them as well. That's relatively contained.

Then you have these broader questions like what they're grappling with in Rhode Island and in California. It raises really interesting and important questions.

And so, whether it's at the lower end of just placing a marker, renaming a street, taking down an offensive monument, or at the higher end of actually trying to calculate financial reparations, it's a long overdue conversation.

LEMON: Well -- and it's interesting because the conversation is not more around -- there are still people who are saying no, it shouldn't happen. This should never -- it's not -- but this is a conversation about how you do it because it's actually happening, Chenjerai.

Look, the question -- respond to that, and then I've got another question for you.

KUMANYIKA: Well, one thing I want to say is look, I understand why this issue is -- people say it's a divisive issue, right?

LEMON: Right.

KUMANYIKA: I mean, everyone has to work to got what -- get what they've gotten. But I think not enough people are aware of the way when you look at those discrepancies that you named -- the discrepancy in median household income -- when you look at --

LEMON: Put that back up. Homeownership for white Americans --

KUMANYIKA: Yes.

LEMON: -- 73 percent, and Black Americans, 42 percent.

KUMANYIKA: Yes, when you look at homeownership.

The report identifies that predominantly white school districts get $23 billion more than other kinds of districts.

These have something to do with history. So I think the thing that a lot of advocates for this say is that it's actually the inequality that's divisive, not the efforts to repair it.

LEMON: Explain that. What do you mean?

KUMANYIKA: Well, it's hard for many people who are still -- feel like they're doing ongoing harms. You know, the report reflects -- and I hope people actually go to the report, by the way, because this is one of those areas where I think it's very vulnerable to misinformation. So I hope people actually go and read the report.

And one of the things that they say is some of these harms in equality -- things to do with segregation and housing are ongoing. And I think that it's hard for people to feel like they have a real stake in America, like this country is moving forward on democracy, if we're not addressing some of those harms.

LEMON: Let's talk about this, Errol, because you mentioned it before. The questions are whether there should be direct payments as opposed to programs. So how do -- what's the decision here? How do you decide which is better?

LOUIS: I think you have to go case-by-case, jurisdiction-by- jurisdiction. There are remarkably good records. If you want to find actual descendants of enslaved people it's not all that hard.

My sister Ellen, who is watching now, is our family historian. She's traced on our side -- on my mother's side down to a particular county in North Carolina to a particular plantation. If you look at the 1860 census, and the 1870 census, and the 1880 census, there's a lot of information about who was enslaved. And so, if you wanted to go that route you could.

If you wanted to do something broader it starts to get complicated. It gets remarkably complicated very quickly, Don, because if you wanted to sort of develop an area -- well, what about gentrifiers or others who happen to be living there who had nothing to do with any of this. Who literally got off a boat 90 days ago and they start to benefit from some of that? It starts to get really complicated.

And it was complicated right from the very beginning. In 1865, it was as clear as possible when Gen. Sherman issued his special order saying we're going to take 400,000 acres and give it to people right now who have been enslaved. Even that got wrapped up in controversy, politically, and was canceled before it could be implemented.

[07:40:05]

LEMON: But we've done complicated and controversial things before, is the old saying -- right -- the cliche, you can walk and chew gum at the same time. These are things that we can figure out.

But here's the thing. The questions about who should be -- by the way, you said your sister is Ellen?

LOUIS: Yes.

LEMON: Right. It's -- those records aren't always available because I've had my ancestry traced and you -- sometimes you need Henry Louis Gates -- someone who can dig into this and go back and find it.

KUMANYIKA: Yes.

LEMON: Right?

KUMANYIKA: Yes. LEMON: To go back and dig into it.

But the questions about who should be eligible. For example, the California commission narrowly voted to suggest that only descendants of the enslaved Black people were eligible. That's difficult. Talk about that.

KUMANYIKA: Yes. This is a really complicated aspect of this because there are some specific kinds of harms that certain groups of people have experienced and we want to make sure to address that.

I mean, I think one thing to look at is that this -- we should think of this as a beginning to -- like -- as you mentioned -- I mean, for the first time, we're really talking about repair in a serious way. And I think that there's different kinds of claims that different groups might have when you really look at the facts of who has built America.

And again, my colleague Rachel Swarns, who talked about the Georgetown stuff, also said current institutions like insurance companies are still benefiting. So there has to be a way that we can sort of work through these details.

LEMON: Right, and lots of Fortune 500 companies and beyond, and universities who have benefited on it.

So my question to you -- before I let you go Errol -- of course, politics. That's what you cover so well. What does this mean for 2024?

LOUIS: Well look, the fact that the initial ask, which was just to do the research -- that was controversial, right? John Conyers introduced a bill every -- in every Congress and it never got passed and it's never been fully implemented.

But the fact that individual jurisdictions -- different counties, institutions, states are starting to look -- they're ordering insurance companies to start producing some of the old policies and the property records to try and find out what we can. I think the politics of that is kind of where we are now. But any polling on it shows that it is wildly unpopular with white Americans and very popular with Black Americans. No surprise there.

LEMON: And there we go -- divided again.

Thank you very much, Chenjerai, and thank you, Errol. I appreciate it very much.

Straight ahead here on CNN THIS MORNING, same-sex marriages once again going before the high scout.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: And that's right. I'm Jessica Schneider here at the Supreme Court. The justices are here -- set to hear that major case concerning gay rights and free speech. I'll tell you how it might change the way some do business and how they could actually shut out some customers.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:46:55]

HARLOW: This morning, the Supreme Court is taking up a really significant case. This is a major case over LGBTQ rights and free speech. It is brought by a Christian graphic artist who makes websites, who says she -- it violates her faith to make wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Our Jessica Schneider is live at the Supreme Court with more. Jessica, good morning. Such a significant case with a very different makeup of the court since the last time they heard a similar case.

SCHNEIDER: That's exactly right, Poppy. The Supreme Court here today and in the coming months here -- they could really determine whether certain businesses can refuse to serve same-sex couples.

As you referenced, it was just four years ago that the Supreme Court actually sided with a Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. That case, though, was on very narrow grounds. It only applied to that baker.

This case, however, could turn out to be much more broad and it could really change the way people do business.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Gay rights is once again taking center stage at the Supreme Court at the same time Congress is poised to pass legislation ensuring federal benefits for same-sex couples --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As amended has passed.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): -- and requiring states to recognize gay marriage. But while Congress is expanding gay rights, some court- watchers worry the conservative majority at the high court could roll back protections.

STEVE VLADECK, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW: Compared to where we were as recently as four, five, six years ago, I think this is a court that's going to be far less sympathetic to gay rights issues.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): This morning, the court will consider whether certain business owners can refuse to work with same-sex couples. It's a case being brought by Colorado website designer Lorie Smith.

LORIE SMITH, REFUSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH SAME-SEX COUPLES: The state of Colorado is forcing me to create custom, unique artwork -- expression communicating and celebrating a different view of marriage -- a view of marriage that goes against my deeply-held beliefs.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): And Smith openly declares on her site that she is selective about the websites she'll design. And she wants the Supreme Court to rule that she does not have to comply with a Colorado law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against same-sex couples. Her lawyer contents it comes down to Lorie's role as a creator and free speech.

KRISTEN WAGGONER, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: It's about whether the government can use the power of law to force Americans to say things that they don't believe.

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): But advocates on the other side argue if business owners like Smith are allowed to decide which customers they can refuse, any number of groups might ultimately be discriminated against.

MARY BONAUTO, SENIOR ATTORNEY, GAY & LESBIAN ALLIANCE AGAINST DEFAMATION: Are you going to have another protestant baker who doesn't want to make the first communion cake? Do you want to have the school photographer who has their business but they don't want to take pictures of certain kids?

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Mary Bonauto argued the case in 2015 that ultimately guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Right now, there are no cases pending before the Supreme Court that could put that right in peril. But nothing is stopping opponents from trying to get a similar case back before the court where they could find a welcome audience.

Justice Clarence Thomas, for one, urged the court, as part of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, to "...reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents," including the same-sex marriage decision. Saying the court has a "duty to correct the error."

[07:50:09]

Justice Samuel Alito did stress that nothing in his majority opinion overturning Roe "should be understand to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

But Justice Thomas' words were foreboding for gay rights advocates who have heard from a flurry of panicked couples.

BONAUTO: It was an avalanche of questions. I mean, there are few things more precious to people, if anything, than their family - and the idea that suddenly your family could be destabilized.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: Now again, there is currently no case before the Supreme Court that would eliminate that nationwide right to same-sex marriage. But, of course, Poppy, there is a lot of fear given the fact that just a few months ago the court did overturn major precedent with that Dobbs decision --

HARLOW: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: -- overturning Roe v. Wade -- Poppy.

HARLOW: Jessica, I'm so glad you did that story to really explain to people what's at stake here. I mean, the ACLU is saying if the web designer who you interviewed, Lorie Smith, in this case, prevails, they say, quote, "We will live in a world in which any business that has an expressive service can put up a sign that says Women Not Served, Jews Not Served, Black People Not Served, and claim a First Amendment right to do that."

And Colorado's attorney general -- right, on the other side -- says look, if you open up your doors to the public you have to serve everyone.

What I think is different this time, is it not, is that in the last case, four years ago, the court actually didn't decide on that core issue, but I wonder if it will now?

SCHNEIDER: That's exactly right. It was a very narrow decision last time, finding for that Colorado baker. But the court didn't describe -- didn't decide that broader issue as to whether these anti- discrimination laws that exist in many states, not only Colorado -- whether by making businesses serve all people they could potentially violate someone's free speech rights.

In this case, Lorie Smith says look, I'm a content designer. I'm essentially endorsing messages. That's why I don't want to create these websites for these same-sex couples because it violates my free speech. We'll see if the court seizes on that argument today, Poppy.

HARLOW: It could change so much whichever way it comes down.

Jessica Schneider at the high court. Thank you.

All right. So we're going to take you next inside a fan's only -- OnlyFans, I should say where sex sells. But what is the cost and the stigma for those involved? Audie Cornish is here with a fascinating new episode of her podcast.

LEMON: Oh, I can't wait for that discussion.

And here's a live look at the Mauna Loa volcano eruption as lava creeps toward a major highway. Look -- live on your screen right now.

HARLOW: Wow.

LEMON: A live report from Hawaii's Big Island straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:56:19]

LEMON: OK. So it started out as a subscription-based website for celebrities and creators to make money for their content. Now, partly because of pandemic lockdowns, OnlyFans is a big moneymaker for adult creators. It is the latest episode -- in this latest episode, I should say, of her CNN podcast, "The Assignment," our Audie Cornish speaks to people who have made OnlyFans their career.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COWE, "THE ASSIGNMENT WITH AUDIE CORNISH" PODCAST: It's almost like you but the bullet when you decide to do anything like this I think. You sort of go --

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely.

COWE: -- I know what people are going to think about me. I know --

CORNISH: Yes.

COWE: -- what they're going to say. And you sort of -- you weigh up the pros and the cons and you --

CORNISH: Exactly.

COWE: -- and you make the jump and just hope for the best.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: OK. So, CNN anchor and host of "The Assignment with Audie Cornish," Audie Cornish, joins us now. Thank you.

This is fascinating because listen, people have their idea about what OnlyFans is. But a lot of them turned -- a lot of people or creators turned to OnlyFans and this became their -- during the pandemic -- their only source of income, and it's working for a lot of them.

CORNISH: Yes. We should say OnlyFans is a little bit of a glorified payments processor. That's what makes it different. You can actually monetize your relationship with your audience. And so, you can have an OnlyFans for your gardening or whatever, right? It doesn't necessarily end up having that sort of public face.

But remember during the pandemic, unemployment surged upwards of 13 percent. It fell down to only like seven percent by the end of the year. There were a lot of people out of work looking to make money. Our two guests on our show were two of them.

One was a health worker in the U.K. and he talked about barely making ends meet while also just being a health worker in the pandemic and how kind of hard that was.

And the other person had worked in retail before they got into this business, and they lost that job. And then during the pandemic, they also embraced using OnlyFans, in particular, to essentially sell pornography.

LEMON: Yes, that's what I was going to say because when I said people have their ideas -- but it's mostly -- is it mostly a sex site? Is it?

CORNISH: It's become very popular -- a kind of pop culture shorthand for that, certainly, when you have artists like Cardi B, et cetera. Bella Thorne, who kind of made a lot of money just sort of implying that they are adjacent to the sexual content.

And I think that's actually what made me want to get into it is the idea that like this is porn adjacent, right? And then it becomes sort of sex work adjacent.

LEMON: Yes.

CORNISH: And the implications for that are actually quite serious because in 2018, there was a new law that said that providers -- online providers could be held liable for things that appear on their sites.

So this was (INAUDIBLE). It was supposed to attack human trafficking. But that -- it didn't just sort of make a distinction between consensual or nonconsensual, or this work or that work. So someone who doesn't think of themselves as a sex worker could easily find themselves under I guess what would be called financial discrimination or penalty from our financial system.

HARLOW: I loved this episode because, as you do so well, it made me think about this in a different way. And you humanize many people that I think some would say well, this is dehumanizing for them even though it's their choice, OK. But I loved that you really got deep on the social penalty and the cost analysis of what it -- if people make this choice, so much ahead in their life they feel like they will be excluded from.

Can you talk about that?

CORNISH: Yes, they're very aware of that. I mean, both of them talked about the kinds of dreams they might have going forward -- they're in their 20s -- that they feel like maybe they're locked out of. Being a teacher. Being a -- being a nurse. The idea that one of them said people will see you as a person who can't be around children and can't be around the vulnerable.

[08:00:00]