The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 10.3 Why People Are Freaking Out On Demi Lovato, Amber Guyger Hug Debate, Todd Phillips, & More

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup, you beautiful bastards. Hope you've had a fantastic Thursday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. And a quick note before we get started, as you may have noticed, I'm dressed a little bit different today. Kind of one, because I kind of wanted a warm hug all day. And also two, over at shopdefranco.com, link down below,

Starting point is 00:00:14 I am launching the pre-order for the One Day We'll All Be Skeletons varsity hoodie. I love the other shirt around this. I love the message. And once I saw this design, I was like, yes, we have to. But yeah, if you want to snag one for yourself, make sure you grab it as fast as possible. Of course, it's first come, first served.

Starting point is 00:00:27 And also, while you're at Shop DeFranco, check out some of the new bundles that we just created in case you want to grab a bunch all at once. But with that said, let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is the sentencing of Amber Geiger and all of these stories that have been coming from it. In case you missed it,

Starting point is 00:00:40 we talked about her case earlier this week. Geiger was a police officer in Dallas, and in 2018, she entered a man's apartment, shooting and killing him. And she said the reason for her actions is that she thought that she was entering her apartment and that this man was an intruder. But she did not, she'd actually entered the apartment

Starting point is 00:00:53 that was above hers and the man that she shot was Botham John. And following this, she was fired, she was charged with manslaughter, but then on Tuesday, like we talked about, Geiger was found guilty of first degree murder. And with this, she faced a maximum sentence of 99 years. And what we ended up seeing at her sentencing yesterday

Starting point is 00:01:07 is that she received 10 years with the eligibility for parole in five. And following this, you had a lot of people who were upset over this seemingly short sentence. It even resulted in protests in Dallas with a member of Next Generation Action Network who organized the protest telling NBC in Dallas. A murder conviction, that's great.

Starting point is 00:01:22 It's almost unprecedented and it's a rarity in this country. But as far as the punishment, the punishment did not fit that action. Right, so there was a lot of outrage and debate around this sentence. Right, this is kind of something that I touched on Tuesday, that what was notable to me was the amount of surprise online

Starting point is 00:01:35 that this person, that this former cop, was actually found guilty. Right, that there's a distrust of the system, that the system does not treat everyone equally. And so obviously, you know, with this sentence, that is continuing. But one of the biggest things to spark attention, get massive spotlight is Botham John's brother.

Starting point is 00:01:50 18 year old Brant John in this courtroom spoke and he said that he forgave Geiger for what she did. Adding that he loves her like any other person and that he does not even want her to go to jail. And then making this request. I don't know if this is possible, but can I give her a hug please? Please?

Starting point is 00:02:14 Yes. And notably he also wasn't the only one to do this. The judge in this case, Tammy Kemp, gave Geiger a Bible and hugged her in the courtroom as well. And among the reactions, you had some finding it both powerful and inspirational. Senator Ted Cruz saying, "'Amidst heartbreaking tragedy,

Starting point is 00:02:37 "'a beautiful, powerful example "'of Christian love and forgiveness.'" Former ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, tweeting, "'This makes my heart hurt. "'There are no winners in this situation. "'Sad all around, but once again, grace prevailed.'" An amazing example of faith, love, and forgiveness, lifting up both families in prayer during this time.

Starting point is 00:02:52 Dallas Police Department say, "'Botham John's brothers request to hug Amber Geiger "'and Judge Kemp's gift of her Bible to Amber "'represent a spirit of forgiveness, faith, and trust. "'In this same spirit, we want to move forward "'in a positive direction with the community.'" But then you also had some more mixed reactions to this situation, with some thinking it was okay

Starting point is 00:03:07 for Brandt to hug Geiger, but were kind of a bit more shocked when they saw the judge do it, with reporter Brooke Thomas saying, "'I have never seen anything like this. I can't imagine having this strength after losing my brother in such a way. This family is amazing.'" And then adding, "'This part made my jaw drop.

Starting point is 00:03:21 None of this has been the ending I expected after a racist killer was convicted and sentenced to prison. Those text messages, I can't get that out of my head." And here, what she's referring to are text messages that were brought up in Geiger's sentencing, where Geiger was seen making jokes about the death of Martin Luther King Jr. and other disrespectful comments about black police officers.

Starting point is 00:03:37 You also had the likes of Jemele Hill saying, "'How Botham John's brother chooses to grieve "'is his business, he's entitled to that. "'But this judge choosing to hug this woman is unacceptable. Keep in mind, this convicted murderer is the same one who laughed about Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination and killing people on site. And then finally, you had others thinking

Starting point is 00:03:52 that this whole situation just sent a troubling message about the way people of color are treated in comparison to white people, with CNN commentator Keith Boykin saying, "'Amber Giger murdered Botham John. "'The jury gave her 10 years. "'The judge hugged her. "'The victim's brother hugged her.

Starting point is 00:04:05 A police officer in court brushed her hair. The message, white women's lives are valuable. Black men's lives are not. Others saying things like Amber Geiger is a racist convicted murderer. Why does she get a sweet caring hug from the judge? Because she was a cop? Because she's a white woman,

Starting point is 00:04:19 which means she deserves sympathy? Name the last black man you saw hugged by the judge after a murder conviction. But ultimately, that's where we are with this story right now. And I mean, as far as my reaction to this, one, I think the family of the victim can react however they find appropriate. Watching both of them, John's brothers, wrap his arms around the woman that took his brother's life. That is, that is powerful. Watching that, I saw a young man who has a much greater capacity for forgiveness

Starting point is 00:04:41 than I do. But as far as the judge, I found that wholly inappropriate. That was my family that this woman had killed. I would have lost my fucking mind. And understand at this point, I'm talking about what my personal feelings on the matter would be if I was in this situation. And hey, everyone can have their own personal feelings on this, so with this story,

Starting point is 00:04:58 I do pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on everything that has transpired? And then let's talk about what celebrities people are angry about today news, because they did or said something. First to be a director, Todd Phillips, of course, directed Old School, The Hangover, now has Joker coming out.

Starting point is 00:05:12 And there was this quote from him that was published that read, go try to be funny nowadays with this woke culture. There were articles written about why comedies don't work anymore. I'll tell you why. Because all the fucking funny guys are like, fuck this shit because I don't want to offend you.

Starting point is 00:05:22 It's hard to argue with 30 million people on Twitter. You just can't do it, right? So you just go, I'm out. I'm out and you know what? With all my comedies, I think what comedies in general all have in common is they're irreverent. So I go, how do I do something irreverent but fuck comedy? Oh, I know, let's take the comic book movie universe

Starting point is 00:05:36 and turn it on its head with this. And so following that being published, people started screenshotting it, sharing it. There was a lot of bashing. With tweets like the whole Todd Phillips woke culture thing just reminds me once again that some people are alarmingly unable to separate vulgarity from bigotry.

Starting point is 00:05:48 Another writing Todd Phillips, "'Wow, woke culture is making comedy impossible.' Taika Waititi, "'Bitch, I'm literally playing Hitler in a comedy and woke Twitter loves my ass for it.'" Also Taika himself quote tweeted an article and tweeted, "'Lol, he funny?' Others pointing to a George Carlin clip

Starting point is 00:06:01 that recently went viral again. In it he talks about his concerns around people who punch down in their comedy. Some referencing Eddie Murphy apologizing for his homophobic and transphobic jokes. But at the same time, he had people pointing to this backlash and saying, "'Well, isn't Todd Phillips right?'

Starting point is 00:06:12 He said a thing that wasn't well received and he was hit with a wave of go fuck yourself." All right, with some saying they're now no longer going to see the Joker. And I'll say, as far as my reaction to this, I think Phillips is both right and wrong. Right, like I imagine old school and other comedies from the past

Starting point is 00:06:24 would not be received the same way if they were released today. And hell, it feels like half the time someone comes out with a new comedy special, there's someone trying to cancel someone. But also usually it feels like that backlash ends up leading to just more traffic to that piece, right? And like with most things and especially comedy,

Starting point is 00:06:37 you're never gonna leave everyone happy. But then, you know, I look to shows like Always Sunny in Philadelphia. It's an incredibly politically incorrect comedy that is fantastic and generally well received. And that is in large part because of the incredibly skilled setup and delivery of the jokes. Are you gonna get hit by some people all of the time?

Starting point is 00:06:54 Sure, but you're gonna get hit the most if you're lazy with the setup and delivery. But yeah, regarding this, I would love to know your thoughts. But yeah, and the other person who was hit with backlash was Demi Lovato. And this because she shared a number of photos from her trip to Israel. And this including one where she was being baptized

Starting point is 00:07:07 in the River Jordan. And she says that she was raised Christian, has Jewish ancestors. Adding, when I was offered an amazing opportunity to visit the places I'd read about in the Bible growing up, I said, yes. There is something absolutely magical about Israel. And reportedly rather quickly,

Starting point is 00:07:19 her comments started getting filled up with people that were angry. Some saying this was Demi Lovato taking a political stance. Others angry she didn't mention the Israel-Palestine conflict. Lovato eventually disabling the comments, which just got people angrier. And eventually Lovato ended up apologizing.

Starting point is 00:07:31 "'Writing in an Instagram story, I'm extremely frustrated. "'I accepted a free trip to Israel "'in exchange for a few posts. "'No one told me there would be anything wrong with going "'or that I could possibly be offending anyone.' "'And adding with that being said, "'I'm sorry if I've hurt or offended anyone. "'That was not my intention.

Starting point is 00:07:44 "'Sometimes people present you with opportunities and no one tells you the potential backlash you could face in return. Adding, this was a spiritual experience, not a political statement. And closing, going against all advice right now and apologizing because it feels right to me and I'd rather get in trouble for being authentic to myself

Starting point is 00:07:57 than staying quiet to please other people. I love my fans, all of them from all over. But also, of note, it appears that that apology is no longer up. Yeah, with all of that said, I'd love to know your thoughts on the whole situation, the apology, anything. Then let's talk about the EU making decisions

Starting point is 00:08:11 for the rest of the world. That's probably the worst and most cynical way to describe the situation, but accurate. And so this big news involves Facebook. Today, the European Court of Justice, EU's highest court, ruled that Facebook can be ordered to remove specific content worldwide if one EU member country finds it illegal.

Starting point is 00:08:27 In a statement, the ECJ said that if the national court of one EU country decides a post on Facebook is illegal, Facebook will be required to remove all duplicates of that post, and not just in the EU country, but everywhere in the world. With the ruling also saying that in some cases, even posts that are similar to the post deemed illegal will have to be removed.

Starting point is 00:08:45 And the ECJ made this decision after an Austrian politician sued Facebook and Austrian courts demanding that the company remove a defamatory comment someone posted about her, as well as any equivalent comments disparaging her. And this reportedly after a Facebook user shared a link to a news article that called the politician a quote, "'lousy traitor of the people, a corrupt oaf,

Starting point is 00:09:01 "'and a member of a fascist party.'" Now Facebook at first had refused to remove this post, which in many countries would still be considered acceptable political speech, but the Austrian courts ruled that the post was intended to hurt her reputation, and the Austrian Supreme Court referred this case to the ECJ. And in the ECJ statement, the highest court did clarify that Facebook and other social media companies are not liable for illegal content posted on their platforms if they didn't know it was illegal or removed it quickly. But this ruling still comes as a massive blow and a huge change for Facebook and not just Facebook, just social media companies in general.

Starting point is 00:09:30 And unsurprisingly, Facebook is not happy with this decision. Before the high court's decision, Facebook and others critical of the rule argued that allowing one country to force a platform to remove material globally limits free speech. But Facebook also arguing that the decision would most likely force them to use automated content filters, which some activists have claimed

Starting point is 00:09:45 could cause legitimate posts to be taken down. Right, that's because the filters can't necessarily tell if a post is ironic or satirical or just a meme. Although I have noticed that the meme format in general has been incredibly effective as far as just pushing propaganda, but you know what I mean. The main point, we ended up seeing Facebook condemn the ECJ ruling in a statement where they argued

Starting point is 00:10:03 that internet companies should not be responsible for monitoring and removing speech that might be illegal in one specific country, and saying, it undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country. It also opens the door to obligations being imposed on internet companies to proactively monitor content and then interpret if it is, quote, equivalent

Starting point is 00:10:21 to content that has been found to be illegal. And adding, in order to get this right, national courts will have to set out very clear definitions on what identical and equivalent means in practice. We hope the courts take a proportionate and measured approach to avoid having a chilling effect on freedom of expression. And Facebook's statement has also been echoed

Starting point is 00:10:36 by some experts in the field, like Thomas Hughes, the executive director of the UK rights group Article 19, who said compelling social media platforms like Facebook to automatically remove posts regardless of their context will infringe our right to free speech and restrict the information we see online. And adding this would set a dangerous precedent where the courts of one country could control

Starting point is 00:10:54 what internet users in another country can see. This could be open to abuse, particularly by regimes with weak human rights records. Which I mean, regarding that last point, an analyst at the Center for Data Innovation told the Financial Times that the ruling could open a Pandora's box. Right, I mean, hell, right point, an analyst at the Center for Data Innovation told the Financial Times that the ruling could open a Pandora's box. Right, I mean, hell, right,

Starting point is 00:11:07 the note of enabling bad actors, yesterday we talked about that Singapore fake news law. Right, how can you speak truth to power when the power gets to just go, yeah, I think that's fake news. Also, this horrible destructive decision can now expand past our borders. Yeah, ultimately that's where we are with this right now.

Starting point is 00:11:22 I mean, this decision can't be appealed because once again, it is the highest court. And it's going to be interesting to see how Facebook and other social media companies continue to react. What will we see removed? You know, we have this decision, but what will we see as the true scope? But with this story, of course,

Starting point is 00:11:35 I'd love to know your thoughts on this. And then let's talk about this controversial plan coming out of Philadelphia to reduce opioid overdoses. And this story actually goes back to January of last year. We also have a fantastic deep dive on this on the Rogue Rocket channel that we posted last month. But main point, last year, Philly officials announced that they plan to look

Starting point is 00:11:51 to establish the country's first safe injection site. And essentially what that would look like is a space where people could use illegal opioids while being supervised by medical staff. And actually following that proposal, a nonprofit called Safehouse stepped in to spearhead the project. And I do think it's important to note here

Starting point is 00:12:04 that while the United States doesn't have any safe injection sites, we've actually seen them popping up in to spearhead the project. And I do think it's important to note here that while the United States doesn't have any safe injection sites, we've actually seen them popping up in places like Canada and Europe, with researchers finding that those facilities resulted in less overdoses and linked drug users with treatment services. Also in the case of infectious diseases like HIV, we've seen transmission rates drop. And so of course, we have Safehouse defending their proposed injection site with those stats. Right, saying that the idea is based on harm reduction tactics. That's kind of similar to what we've seen with some cities and states handing out clean needles

Starting point is 00:12:27 for drug users, but of course, a note there, those decisions have also been extremely controversial. For example, back in 2014, then governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, refused to lift a ban on sterile needle programs. This while one county in his state suffered a massive HIV outbreak because of opioid users sharing needles. And there we saw Pence saying that those programs

Starting point is 00:12:43 encouraged drug abuse, although ultimately, he did issue an executive order and then signed another law in 2015, both of which ended up allowing counties in the state to distribute sterile needles. The main point, if there was pushback there and then around sterile needles, we shouldn't be surprised if there was pushback here, which means on that note,

Starting point is 00:12:57 last year in November, we saw the federal government urging Safe House to comply with federal law. However, Safe House continued with their plan, and then we saw the government filing a civil lawsuit back in February with William McSwain, the attorney representing the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, saying, this is in your face illegal activity using some of the most deadly dangerous drugs that are on the streets. We have a responsibility to step in. It's saying safe house, we think this is illegal, stop what you're doing. Right, and essentially saying just because you go to a safe house, it doesn't mean that you're not going to

Starting point is 00:13:22 overdose when you're not at the site. Also that it doesn't mean that there couldn't be other negative effects of having a site where more people are, for example, getting hooked on drugs or trying drugs because they think it's safe or they think it's legitimate or they think it's legal. We don't attract people to go down this path of drug dependency that destroys their lives.

Starting point is 00:13:37 Right, and so a big part of their concern and a part of their argument is kind of the same as the clean needles argument, that a safe injection site could normalize or inadvertently encourage drug abuse. With the government also saying that a supervised injection site would violate part of the Controlled Substances Act of 1980,

Starting point is 00:13:50 specifically a section widely known as the Crack House Statute, which makes it illegal to maintain spaces to make, store, distribute, or use illegal drugs. Which is important because while Safe House didn't plan to make, store, or distribute drugs, they would allow people to bring their own and use. But on the other side of things,

Starting point is 00:14:04 Safe House has argue that the statute had originally been passed to crack down on owners of drug dens or people selling drugs out of their cars. With the attorney for Safe House saying that the site wouldn't violate federal laws because its focus would be on saving lives and encouraging people addicted to opioids to be treated.

Starting point is 00:14:17 Which on that note, you had city officials in Philadelphia estimating that such a site could save 75 lives each year. As far as the reason we're talking about this today is that yesterday we finally saw a federal judge rule on the matter. And the judge cited in the favor of Safehouse, saying in his decision, "'The ultimate goal of Safehouse's proposed operation

Starting point is 00:14:32 "'is to reduce drug use, not facilitate it, "'and accordingly, the statute does not prohibit "'Safehouse's proposed conduct.'" Right, and so with that, the judge concluded that the crack house statute wouldn't apply here. And that because the context here is significantly different. Also, because of this decision, the federal government is expected to appeal.

Starting point is 00:14:47 With McSwain saying, "'The Department of Justice remains committed "'to preventing illegal drug injection sites from opening. "'Today's opinion is merely the first step "'in a much longer legal process that will play out. "'This case is obviously far from over.'" But still, we are where we are here. A decision has been made,

Starting point is 00:15:01 and that's why it's expected that officials in other cities like New York and Seattle have been watching closely. Right, because the judge's decision here could give them the precedent to open up sites of their own. Some of which have actually already been proposed. However, you also had US Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen warning those cities saying, "'Any attempt to open illicit drug injection sites

Starting point is 00:15:16 "'in other jurisdictions while this case is pending "'will continue to be met with immediate action.'" Yeah, ultimately that's where we are with this right now. It is gonna be interesting to see what happens from here. With this story, I do wanna pass the question off to you of do you think that drug injection sites should be a thing? Do you agree with the concerns

Starting point is 00:15:30 that this might encourage drug use or first time use? Or do you think having a place where someone can be safer, that's more controlled, that's monitored, the possibility of funneling some to treatment services, is that better? And so any and all thoughts on this, I'd love to hear from you.

Starting point is 00:15:44 And that's where I'm going to end today's show. And hey, if you like this video, hit us with a like. If you're new here, make sure you hit that subscribe button, tap that bell to turn on notifications. Also, if you're not 100% filled in, you're already caught up on all the Philip DeFranco shows this week, maybe you wanna check out the brand new podcast we did

Starting point is 00:15:57 with Nikita Dragon or a brand new Rogue Rocket deep dive. You can click or tap right there to watch either of those. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love your faces and I'll see you next time.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 10.3 Why People Are Freaking Out On Demi Lovato, Amber Guyger Hug Debate, Todd Phillips, & More

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.