The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 12.1 New Ethan Klein H3 Defamation Lawsuit Is Bigger Than Most Realize, Omicron in America & Today's News

Episode Date: December 1, 2021

Start your free trial today: http://www.Squarespace.com/Phil & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase! More PDS: https://youtu.be/CjLvl7J6kzk TEXT ME! [phone] Get More Phil: https://linktr.ee/PhilipDeFranco -- 00:00 - Ethan Klein Slams Lawsuit Filed by Ryan Kavanaugh 09:24 - Sponsor 10:13 - New Federal Rules Now Allow Debt Collectors to DM People on Social Media 11:56 - New Evidence Suggests Omicron Spread Beyond Africa Before It Was Identified 14:29 - Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Landmark Case That Could Overturn Roe v. Wade -- ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ Ethan Klein Slams Lawsuit Filed by Ryan Kavanaugh: https://csq.com/2021/11/c-suite-contributor-ryan-kavanaugh-the-dark-side-of-the-power-of-social-media/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ryan-kavanaugh-podcaster-lawsuit-1235054660/ New Federal Rules Now Allow Debt Collectors to DM People on Social Media: https://roguerocket.com/2021/12/01/debt-dm/ New Evidence Suggests Omicron Spread Beyond Africa Before It Was Identified: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/evidence-early-omicron-transmission-emerges-netherlands-nigeria-rcna7200 Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Landmark Case That Could Overturn Roe v. Wade: https://roguerocket.com/2021/12/01/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-2/ —————————— Executive Producer: Amanda Morones Edited by: James Girardier, Julie Goldberg, Maxwell Enright Art Department: Brian Borst, William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Cory Ray, Brian Espinoza, Maddie Crichton, Lili Stenn, Neena Pesqueda Production Team: Zack Taylor, Emma Leid ———————————— #DeFranco #EthanKlein #RyanKavanaugh ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Wow, I have a crazy one for you, but before we jump into it, I just wanna say today is my birthday, toot my own horn. Also, just in case you're not aware, Joe Biden just recently passed a law where because it's my birthday, you have to like, comment, especially if you've never left a comment

on this video before, and maybe even share today's show. Especially because a number of the stories actually could have huge consequences, both nationally and internationally. But yeah, with that said, welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show, you beautiful bastard, and let's just jump into it.

And y'all, the first thing that we have to talk about today is this massive news around Ethan Klein, aka H3 Productions, aka a guy who just seems to be a lightning rod for lawsuits. But even if you don't know who Ethan Klein is, you love him, you hate him, it doesn't even matter because the story is bigger than just one man. This is a story and lawsuit

that's about piracy versus fair use. It's about defamation versus reporting. The legal limitations of what you can report when a lawsuit is not a lawsuit. So just like Ethan Klein's last fair use lawsuit, this could be precedent setting. So with that said, as far as who's on the other end of this lawsuit,

you have Ryan Kavanaugh, who if you don't know is a film producer and businessman as well, is a co-founder and majority holder in Triller. And yesterday he filed a lawsuit against Ethan, though things actually started with a legal spat we covered in the past. For that being when Triller initially sued Ethan and H3

for airing a portion of its Jake Paul versus Ben Askren fight during one of its podcasts earlier this year. Triller had filed a massive lawsuit against several entities that had accused of pirating the fight at that time, but a court dismissed the majority of the defendants. Though it did allow for Triller to refile against outlets individually,

leading to a separate suit against H3 and that lawsuit alleged copyright infringement among other claims. At that time, Ethan hit back saying that his inclusion of the fight should fall under fair use, which then leads us to yesterday. Ryan Kavanaugh wrote an essay titled the dark side of the power of social media, explaining more about his recent lawsuit

and why he's saying that he filed it. There we saw Ryan repeat claims that Ethan pirated and broadcasted that fight to millions of people, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales for Triller while Ethan profited. Also saying that Ethan initially seemed willing to settle, but then quote, against all common legal practices, rather than negotiating a good faith, he disclosed his views on the suit

in the terms of the discussed settlement on his podcast to millions of viewers and further disparaged Triller. Ryan going on to claim that this was a bad faith tactic and violation of litigation laws. All of that is kind of an explanation of the first part of the story, but then it moves from a piracy issue to a defamation issue. It's from there, Ryan claimed that Ethan has posted video

after video attacking and slandering me personally, despite the fact that while I am a shareholder and co-founder, I am not Triller. Right, among other things, accusing Ethan of trying to use his video titles to optimize search results so that his videos show up when someone searches the name Ryan Kavanaugh. Ryan adding that Ethan's followers have amplified the attacks.

Ryan also specifically alleging that despite the fact that he has never met Ethan, Ethan has posted more than eight podcasts disparaging him with those podcasts, including false and harmful information. Ryan also pointing to a website Ethan made that compares him to Harvey Weinstein and then claimed that Ethan sent paid traffic

to push disparaging articles to the top of Google search results about him, saying that he's encouraged H3 fans to attack him online and threaten his family. Ryan additionally brought up a Variety article that Ethan has referenced in the past with a headline that says Ryan was accused of running a Ponzi scheme. But Ryan arguing that Ethan is bringing up this article

in bad faith because an update in the story notes that the situation was solved and that the complaint was never intentionally filed. Ryan also accused Ethan of making other defamatory remarks like claims that Ryan has not properly paid his employees or Nanny and that he's gotten two DUIs, which Ryan says is false. With Kavanaugh also alleging that Ethan paid Wikipedia editors to quote,

"'Destroy his page with negative additions,' started a Reddit thread for people to plan attacks against him and gloat about their successes, and caused his followers and paid bots to give the Triller app a bad online rating." With Ryan saying, "'All of this amounts to textbook malicious behavior intended to harm me and Triller.

This leaves me with no choice but to sue. One malignant internet personality with a large following, the equivalent of an angry child with a loaded gun, can cause disproportionate harm to anyone using lies, slander, and SEO, and suffer few, if any, consequences. Now, I understand that is a lot. It's kind of this shotgun blast of accusations, and we could only hit on so many things,

and more could even be on the way. But I will link to the full article down below so you can see every detail as he explained it. But of course, in a situation where we're talking about a lawsuit, right? I just explained the accusations from one side, what does the other side think? So with that, I reached out to Ethan Klein

for a comment or response regarding the accusations or any of this in general, and he gave a lengthy response. With Ethan starting off by saying, "'Ryan Kavanaugh's first malicious lie "'is that he claims I pirated his event. "'Fair use is at the heart of this lawsuit. Same as with our first lawsuit. Used a short clip of the event during an extremely critical

commentary during a three hour podcast. Ryan Kavanaugh tries to blame me for his event being widely pirated, which is pure defamation. We didn't even react to the event until days after it was streamed on pay-per-view. If he cared about pirates, why did he drop all of his other lawsuits against actual pirates, but only kept the one against me?

Ethan going on to accuse Ryan of targeted illegal harassment, asking why his wife's Teddy Fresh brand is listed in the suit when he says it has nothing to do with the case at hand. Ethan also denying that he told his fans to harass Ryan online, claiming that he's actually done the opposite on multiple occasions.

Then he brought up a series of articles that address some of the specific accusations Ryan made, including the Variety situation we mentioned, with Ethan claiming that he made it clear that the accusation was retracted, adding that if Ryan, quote, "'has a problem with the article, take it up with Variety, one mentioned. With Ethan claiming that he made it clear that the accusation was retracted. Adding that if Ryan quote, has a problem with the article, take it up with Variety, one of the most trusted news sources

in entertainment, not me. Ethan then addressing Ryan's claims that he was spreading false information regarding DUIs and paying employees. With Ethan arguing that he was just referencing information made available in articles by well-regarded news sources. Pointing to three New York Times articles from 2008

that say that Ryan was charged for drunk driving in 2006 and was arrested for the same thing again in 2008. Also sharing a Vanity Fair article that brings up the same arrests. Regarding the accusation about Ryan not paying his nanny, Ethan pointed to an article from Fox San Diego that says that Ryan's former nanny sued him for 175,000 in lost wages

after she was abruptly fired in 2020. That reportedly just two months into a contract that was meant to last over a year with Ethan writing, "'Again, I am not creating any of these claims, but merely reading what has already been published by well-respected news sources. How is that defamation? Regarding the accusations that Ethan sent bots

to give Triller negative reviews, Ethan said that Ryan is solely blaming him when other big influencers have been critical of the app as well, including Noah Beck, a Triller advisor and shareholder who made a TikTok complaining about how Triller's camera has flipped, with Ethan claiming that he's only told his fans to give honest and genuine reviews.

Ethan also going on to share a Hollywood Reporter article where an investor reportedly told a judge, In a town full of scam artists, posers, false prophets, and flim-flam men, Ryan C. Kavanaugh is in a Hollywood class by himself. Ethan also linking to articles from Variety and Deadline that say a judge found Ryan had fabricated a memo which included false sexual harassment claims against an executive at his previous production company, with Ethan closing his statement to us by saying, Ryan Kavanaugh is a business elite "'who is used to suing, harassing, "'and breaking the law with no consequences.

"'He wields the legal system like a malignant tyrant, "'uses it to silence his critics "'and now to stifle fair use, "'something we all on YouTube should care about.'" With Ethan also addressing the entire situation with Ryan on Twitter, writing, "'Ryan Kavanaugh is trying to get my channel "'banned from YouTube, a powerful media person

"'who has gone to every length "'to destroy me for criticizing him. Everyone needs to pay attention now. Not only is fair use on the line, but the powerful trying to shut down channels for criticism. With him then pointing to a Wikipedia user who he thinks might be Ryan, saying that the user admitted to sending legal notices to YouTube and Twitch to get H3H3 banned. And in that same Twitter thread, Ethan shared what he called a threatening Instagram DM that Ryan allegedly sent him, which shows Ryan laying out some of the accusations

we just mentioned and warning Ethan to stop. So you have all of that, but then there's also an aspect of the story that I feel like is getting overlooked because obviously there's a lot of big accusations being thrown around, a lot of drama. But it was hit on really well by Eric Gardner and The Hollywood Reporter who explained,

"'A defamation case from the controversial "'entertainment veteran figures to explore a secret "'about the court system that hardly anyone knows about.'" Remember that Variety article that both Ethan and Ryan have mentioned? So as Gardner and the Hollywood Reporter explained, "'About a decade ago, an entity called Courthouse News Service began suing local court officials

around the nation for not providing immediate or near-immediate online access to court filings.'" And adding, "'This service experienced some success, making the argument that the First and 14th Amendment required nothing short of transparency. And as a result, the Los Angeles Superior Court system opened a media portal for reporters. With Gardner going on to explain,

this is where it gets problematic. Noting it takes a bit of time for court filings to be processed. Lawsuits are indexed and assigned. And for the few hours it takes for this to happen, reporters get access to what the LA Superior Court calls, quote, unfiled complaints. With the court even stamping the words unfiled

on every pages of these filings. With Gardner then going on to ask and answer the question, what would happen if a lawyer submitted a complaint into the system and then came to a quick settlement before the complaint got indexed? Explaining that's what happened two years ago. Explaining that in 2017, Kavanaugh launched a new company, Proxima Media,

and along with an individual named Elon Spahr, he pursued a new entertainment stock exchange. But saying this then led to Kavanaugh and Spahr pointing fingers at each other over funding and secrets. But then reporting within hours of submitting the complaints, Kavanaugh's rep was calling media outlets and insisting that no lawsuit had actually been filed and that news stories on the matter were defamatory.

With Gardner noting, I know because I was the recipient of one of those phone calls. And reporting that Kavanaugh even put out a statement at that time, accusing Variety and the Hollywood Reporter of having quote, attempted to smear him by quoting from Spahr's seeming legal filings. But then adding that Kavanaugh never did sue

the Hollywood Reporter nor Variety over the stories about his tussle with Spahr, saying whether he was satisfied by the clarifications appended to the articles or cowered by the admonishment that fair reporting privilege would cover these stories, he backed off. And potentially related to that situation or now Ethan, Gardner writing that when it comes to defamation law,

most states, including California, have a defense known as fair reporting privilege, which basically means that anyone is free to talk about judicial and other governmental proceedings without fearing liability for repeating allegations made there. The only caveat is that the report has to be both a fair and true account of the public proceeding,

noting the media relies mightily on this privilege. And they're noting the example of how Buzzfeed beat defamation suits over its publication of the infamous Trump dossier. So yeah, like I said, at the beginning of this story, a lot of stuff at play here, and depending on how things go, potentially massive consequences. But for now, we're gonna have to wait to see what happens though. I mean, at the beginning of this story, a lot of stuff at play here, and depending on how things go, potentially massive consequences.

But for now, we're gonna have to wait to see what happens, though. I mean, this is a developing story. Even right before I uploaded today's show, I saw Ethan Klein going live addressing this matter, so we may see even more information, more updates. But while we wait to see what happens from here, I do wanna pass the question off to you.

What are your thoughts regarding any and all aspects of this story? Because wow, wow, wow. But from that, let's take a second to pay the bills and thank the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Squarespace. I know over the past year or so, a lot of you have found your passion projects

and what truly makes you happy. Whether that means finally getting your independent business off the ground or creating a place to share your homemade goods, new favorite hobby, current obsession, or maybe even a personal blog to get all those thoughts out of your head. No matter what you're doing, Squarespace is there to help.

It's so easy. There's nothing to install, patch, or upgrade ever. And creating a beautiful website with Squarespace's all-in-one platform has never been so simple. It's extremely intuitive and easy to use. Plus, with Squarespace, you get access to all their marketing tools and analytics and personalized support from their award-winning

customer care team via email or live chat. Whatever you need, they are available 24-7 to help out. So if you wanna check it out and see why so many others have loved it, see if it's perfect for you, go ahead and start your free trial today over at squarespace.com slash phil. And when you realize you love it,

make sure you enter an offer code phil to get 10% off your first purchase. And then if you haven't noticed, you're starting to get more DMs as of today, more people sliding in. Unfortunately, it's not because you're oozing of charisma. It's not your sparkling personality. It's a shitty reason.

New federal rule just went into effect yesterday that now allows debt collectors to message you via email, text, and even through DMs on social media. Now, with this new rule, there are also several rules that debt collectors will still have to follow. For one, if they reach out to you on social media, it does have to be a private message. It can't be a public comment section

or anything viewable to anyone but you. Two, if they reach out by trying to friend you or add you as a contact, they have to be clear upfront that they are pursuing a debt. And three, they have to give you a way to opt out of receiving further communication from them on the social media platform that they reach out on. But still, with this, you have collection agencies

unsurprisingly praising the new rules, which were green-lit by a Trump-appointed former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who said that they intended to, quote, "'Modernize the legal regime for debt collection.'" However, outside of the soul-sucking debt collector community, a lot of people aren't happy with this. With, for example, a writer for the Washington Post

pointing out that people are concerned that, quote, "'If left unchecked, this expanded access to consumers could very well contribute to new ways to harass struggling consumers.'" And adding, "'I've followed this issue for years, and while many companies operate within the law, illegal operations can do a lot of damage to innocent consumers.

Debt collection isn't wicked, but it can lead to embarrassing, unethical, and illegal tactics. And they're noting, for example, that some companies try to collect debts even after they're no longer available because for these companies, they're like, "'Why not shake the tree to see what drops?' And for me personally, this is a story, an issue.

It's hard for me not to be biased on. I get very emotional with this topic. I live a very privileged and fortunate life right now, but when I was a young kid, I got in a lot of debt and I had to deal with debt collectors. And I know probably a lot of those people are just regular people that have a job, but then there are others that just take it

to a weird, inhumane, cruel level. But yeah, on that happy note, I'll pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts regarding these new rules? And then let's talk about Omicron. Ah, just as it felt like things were getting back to normal. The new COVID variant has been found on nearly every continent with the vast majority of those cases being in South Africa

and other countries in the region. That leading to many regions closing travel to try and keep Omicron out. But some of the strictest measures actually coming from Japan and Israel, both of which have closed their borders to essentially all foreigners, regardless of where they came from. And on top of that, at least in Israel,

Israelis need to quarantine when returning home, regardless of whether or not they were vaccinated to help try and contain any potential Omicron outbreak. But most of the measures issued by places like the United States, many European countries, South Korea and China have centered around severely restricting or completely suspending flights from Southern African countries.

However, there is mounting evidence that the region and especially South Africa itself is getting a bad rap and that the cat was already out of the bag. It's increasingly looking like the virus was already in continents like Europe before its discovery was even made on November 24th. For example, Dutch officials have now said that they found Omicron in samples that were taken

on November 19th and November 23rd, far earlier than it was believed to have ever first entered Europe, and even before Omicron was officially identified. On top of that, WHO officials are still trying to determine if Omicron is actually from Southern Africa at all. So right now it is possible that that region is being unfairly targeted with travel restrictions

just for being the place that it was discovered in, had the most time to test for patients for it, and was transparent about it, which is also something that the head of the WHO hit on recently, saying, "'I will understand the concern of all countries to protect their citizens against a variant that we don't yet fully understand.

But I am equally concerned that several member states are introducing blunt blanket measures that are not evidence-based or effective on their own, and which will only worsen inequities.'" But either way, Omicron has been traveling fast around the globe, and in fact, just today, here in the US. The first Omicron case confirmed and not to brag in California, number one in the country,

another gold medal and likely adding to people's concerns here, that patient who returned from South Africa last week had been fully vaccinated, though also on that note, they were only showing mild symptoms, which many experts have pointed out that while the vaccines that we have right now, their efficacy may be lower against Omicron,

there's still the belief that this can protect you from severe symptoms and hospitalization. That being said, to reiterate, there are so many unknowns with this virus. We've talked about preliminary data, people wondering, you know, is this more contagious? You know, can the current vaccines handle it, whether it's more or less deadly?

But also all of that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be cautious. People also shouldn't forget about the Delta variant, which still accounts for most of the cases raging around the world. And unfortunately, as I think more and more people have been coming to realize, this may just be the new world that we live in.

I don't think that it's cynical. I think it's more of a realistic view to say that there's not gonna ever be enough vaccinated people for this to not just keep mutating. And really, if anything, a lot of this, I feel like really bolsters the idea that dealing with COVID may end up like dealing with the flu.

Yeah, some more deadly flu, but where every year we might have to get vaccinated to deal with the most prevalent strain. And then in huge national news with massive implications, we need to talk about the fact that the Supreme Court has now officially begun hearing oral arguments in the biggest abortion case in decades as part of a challenge that could overturn Roe v. Wade

and reverse legal precedents for reproductive rights that have been in place for nearly half a century. Right, and as we've talked about before, this case is based on a 2018 law out of Mississippi that banned most abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions for quote, severe fetal abnormality, but not rape and incest. And so with that, Mississippi's only abortion clinic sued,

arguing that the law was unconstitutional. Then both the district judge and a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against the law and the state appealed to the Supreme Court. Notably, when Mississippi asked the justices to take up its case in June of 2020, the state's attorney general, Lynn Fitch,

explicitly stated that the petition's questions, quote, "'Do not require the court to overturn Roe' or Planned Parenthood versus Casey," which is the 1992 case where the Supreme Court ruled and reaffirmed that states could not ban abortion before the fetus can live outside the womb, which is generally around 24 to 28 weeks. But all of that was before the court's conservatives

solidified their supermajority with the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who personally opposes abortion following the death of liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And so after the justices agreed to take up this case, Fitch filed a brief asking the high court to overturn Roe and Casey.

And so to be clear, as a result, if SCOTUS rules in favor of Mississippi, it doesn't just impact the state, this affects abortion rights nationwide. Mississippi is one of the many Republican-held states that have passed abortion restrictions that lower courts have struck down because they violate Supreme Court decisions

on fetal viability. And as a result, almost all of those laws are not in effect, with the exception of Texas, of course, because SCOTUS refused to block it while legal challenges play out. So if the justices uphold the Mississippi law, depending on the scope of their ruling, there are two possible overarching outcomes.

First, the court could decide to uphold the 15-week ban, but not agree with Fitch's motion asking them to overturn Roe. So while that would undo the precedent for fetal viability set under Casey and allow states to ban abortions earlier, it would leave the 1973 ruling intact. But if the justices do decide to get rid of Roe,

the impact would be way more extreme. Not only would it create a path for more states to pass laws that limit abortions, but it would also allow abortion bans to take effect incredibly quickly. With 22 states currently having laws in place that could be used to restrict abortion if Roe was struck down,

that including 12 states that have what are known as trigger laws that would literally ban all or most abortions immediately if the precedent was overturned. But we're not gonna know what's gonna happen for a little while now. The court is hearing the arguments today, yes, but they aren't expected to rule on the matter

until spring or early summer. Though, as I was recording today, we started seeing reports that the conservatives justices signaled today that they are leaning towards upholding Mississippi's ban. But notably here, the justices did not indicate whether they would agree to overrule Roe entirely. So with all of that said, yes,

this does impact women's rights in general, but also sets up a major matter for the 2022 midterms, especially if the conservative justices rule in favor of Mississippi. While you would obviously know what's gonna happen in very blue and very red states, this could be an all out war in purple states, especially because public polls have shown support

for the president remaining strong over the years. And ultimately that is where this story and today's show ends. Of course, with that, whether it be this final story, the first one, anything in between, I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below. And of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in.

I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.