The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.20 The Horrible "Fantastic Adventures" Mother Abuse Scandal, James Charles Ad Debate, & More

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards welcome back to your daily Philip DeFranco show My name is Philip DeFranco and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is the incredibly troubling story around Michelle Hackney. She's a mother who runs a YouTube channel called Fantastic Adventures And she has been arrested for child abuse. The channel in question has nearly 800,000 subscribers They've gotten over 250 million views and it featured Hackney's seven adopted children acting in various sketches. And according to court records obtained by local news sources, in Arizona, Hackney would physically abuse her children when they messed up lines or didn't take her direction when making videos for the channel.

Starting point is 00:00:31 And going into hyper-specific, she is being accused of locking her children in a closet, starving them, forcing them to take ice baths, pepper spraying their whole bodies, including their faces and genitalia, and beating them with belts, brushes, and hangers. On at least one occasion, and I apologize this is very graphic,

Starting point is 00:00:47 one of her sons bled when the tip of his penis was pinched. And so she has been arrested on seven counts of child abuse, five counts of unlawful imprisonment, and two counts of child molestation. Now Hackney denies these accusations, saying that she would punish her kids, but only by spanking, grounding, and having them stand in a corner.

Starting point is 00:01:02 Also, she's not the only one to have been arrested. Her adult biological sons, Logan and Ryan, who appear on the Fantastic Adventures channel, have also been arrested on charges of not reporting child abuse. And as far as how she was caught, what led to these arrests, according to reports, it was actually Hackney's 19-year-old biological daughter

Starting point is 00:01:15 who contacted authorities last week after one of the adopted siblings told her what was going on. That prompted the police to conduct a wellness check, and when they showed up, they found seven children who appeared pale and malnourished, and one was in a closet wearing only a pull-up diaper. According to the reports, the children told officers

Starting point is 00:01:29 they were hungry and thirsty, with one child drinking three 16-ounce water bottles in less than 20 minutes. Also, reportedly, one was even afraid to eat because they feared their mother would smell the food on their breath. The police also obtained a search warrant and found bottles of pepper spray in Hackney's room,

Starting point is 00:01:42 which was actually located next to the closet that the children were often locked in, which was dubbed the green room. And while being interviewed by police, some of the children told officers they had been subject to numerous forms of abuse, with one saying, I either get beat with a hanger or belt or a brush

Starting point is 00:01:54 or get pepper sprayed from head to toe. Also, according to authorities, Hackney removed the children from school. They haven't been to school in years so that the kids could focus on making YouTube videos for her but also we probably don't have all of the information because reportedly some of the kids couldn't even go through with the interviews and they Were shaking and afraid and as far as Hackney's adult biological sons

Starting point is 00:02:13 You had Logan who spoke to officers confirming that he knew of some of the abuse that was going on adding that he and his Brother Ryan had considered telling the police but never acted on it also saying they would try to sneak food to their siblings when they Could and as far as the young adopted kids now, the Department of Child Safety has taken the seven children out of Hackney's custody. Now as far as the YouTube channel, YouTube has demonetized the videos on the channel, but the channel does still remain up.

Starting point is 00:02:33 And as far as why the channel is still up, it's essentially the same reasoning why the Seven Awesome Kids channel that we talked about previously, that remained up until there was a conviction. With YouTube giving that same quote, "'When we're made aware of serious allegations "'of this nature, we take action,

Starting point is 00:02:45 "'which may include suspending monetization "'or upon conclusion of an investigation, "'terminating channel.'" And as far as my reaction to this horror show of a story today, I don't even know how to properly react. Everything in me wants to rage and curse her and talk about throwing the trash into the fire, but this brings up, once again,

Starting point is 00:03:04 one of the several issues around channels that involve children, that feature children. On any kind of remotely legitimate production show, there are so many rules in place, so many safeguards in place for kids. Because really, if you look at the kids on these channels, in these videos, they're actors, or at the very least, you could say that they're working, right?

Starting point is 00:03:22 They're working to make a product, and so that is child labor. And you know, when we look at these channels, oftentimes we probably think, like, worst're working, right? They're working to make a product, and so that is child labor. And you know, when we look at these channels, oftentimes we probably think, like, worst case scenario, what? The parent films the kid, they don't wanna be filmed. That's already weird and I don't like it. But here we see a situation where,

Starting point is 00:03:35 based on the allegations, you have this woman that was exploiting these children, abusing these children to give a product. Seemingly trying to ruin them with abuse, ruin their future by pulling them out of school. And it really makes me wonder, I mean, what can be put in place to protect these kids? So really with this story, I have like this anger

Starting point is 00:03:53 and this kind of feeling of helplessness. I don't know, but of course with this story, there's a story, some of my personal takeaway, and I pass the question off to you, what do you think about this story? How do you feel with this story? And then let's talk about advertising. And part of the reason, not the only reason,

Starting point is 00:04:05 but part of the reason this story has popped up and people have been requesting it is James Charles. James Charles, of course, massive in the YouTube beauty makeup space. On one of his latest videos, he got some backlash for the number of ads he used. One in particular that caught his attention read, "'Six ads in a 24 minute video, please stop.

Starting point is 00:04:20 "'Girl, I know you gotta make that money, "'but maybe two to three for 24 minutes, I don't know. "'I'm tired of ads being the new transition You have so many sister subs that I feel you out of most don't need that many ads to which James quote tweeted and responded six ads on a 30 minute YouTube video equals roughly four minutes of ads which you can usually skip and which YouTube takes a huge percentage of but a 30 minute TV show has eight minutes of non skippable ads and no one questions Please stop complaining when youtubers recognize their worth. Then you had people comparing James to other big YouTubers. People saying things like Jenna Marbles puts one ad on her videos. Others say back that YouTube videos are not comparable to TV.

Starting point is 00:04:51 But it wasn't just complaints and backlash. It was actually an interesting discussion happening online. People comparing the digital space to the mainstream space. I mean we even did a deep dive on it just what one two weeks ago. We also saw James post more tweets later on saying if you think I'm annoying on camera about YouTube business and marketing you should see me in some of the phone calls and meetings I have. one two weeks ago. We also saw James post more tweets later on, saying, Now I will say, if I am critical to some degree, that feels a little self-important. You know, connected to how this story started, it feels a little bit like, yes, I am a hero for running Six Minerals. But from a business standpoint, I do understand some of the struggles, I do understand some of the ambitions, and I do understand the lack of respect even the largest creators at times get from the mainstream. I don't just mean that with the mainstream media, but with certain digital brands. There's this whole education that's been happening over the past decade. But ultimately what I would say to James, any other creator, the audience out there, is the market decides. All right, let's look at James' new video.

Starting point is 00:05:53 He has a pre-roll, post-roll, and five mid-rolls, so seven ads. And all of these individuals get to decide. Either one, they're completely fine with this, or they'll just watch through the ads. Two, maybe they're bothered by it, they stop watching, they unsubscribe. Three, perhaps it pushes them

Starting point is 00:06:05 to get a YouTube premium subscription, which of course removes ads from videos. Or four, maybe it pushes a viewer to get an ad blocker or change the whitelist settings on their ad blocker. The market decides, and as of right now, the market in general appears to be fine with this video. It's got over three million views, it's number two trending on YouTube,

Starting point is 00:06:19 and obviously audiences are different, but I will say in general, looking at the number of creators that are putting a great number of mid-rolls in their content, it seems like in general, people are okay with it. A good example of someone massively successful that uses a ton of mid-rolls is MrBeast. Although I will say he is a very unique example

Starting point is 00:06:36 because there's a lot of money being spent or given away in a lot of his videos. But I mean, for example, he recently did this $200,000 Airsoft Battle Royale with a ton of other youtubers 26 minutes with mid rolls Pre-roll post roll he has nine ads and the video as a whole is sponsored by apex legend But once again, there's a difference in a video that takes a lot a lot a lot of production There's two hundred thousand dollars being given away and kind of just someone speaking to camera or doing something even slightly greater than that That really only hits on viewer acceptance

Starting point is 00:07:05 and I think it brings up this interesting conversation of should it matter how much something costs to make? Right, if you were able to make a mainstream TV show for a lot less than let's say any of the other big players but that new show that doesn't cost that much money, it gets a ton of big ads, it brings in a ton of money and eyes, should that show for some reason make less

Starting point is 00:07:22 because it took less money or took less time? I personally don't think so. And also as far as the use of a good number of mid-rolls on the platform, I think we're gonna see it more and more and it's not necessarily because of greed or just because people want to make more money, but because of stability. You know, whenever we talk about it, I talk about YouTube being, you know, an unsustainable place. It's a shaky space depending on your content. And if you want to be able to do this long term, you have to be able to predict your revenue.

Starting point is 00:07:43 And for example of how unsustainable and you never know what's gonna happen. If today's video gets hit because we covered that very troubling but important story to cover, it will be the fourth video in a row that was demonetized on this channel. It's unfortunately why we have to put so much effort into side business ventures that help fund us

Starting point is 00:07:59 and selling our own sponsorships and show, which takes our time. Right, we have DeFranco Elite, our Patreon, other people have Patreons as well. So part of this is also you've had more and more creators adding mid-rolls because some of their videos are just getting demonetized in general, so the videos that don't get hit need to make more money.

Starting point is 00:08:14 But ultimately, like I said, the market decides, right? If you look at the mainstream, there are products that get past ads. There are people that also steal content. You also had a lot of people where their attention jumped to digital because you didn't have a ton of ads, or you got a different experience. But ultimately, and I'll say it a million times,

Starting point is 00:08:28 the market decides. That said, you're part of the market, what are your thoughts on this? And then let's talk about what's happening with Florida's historic Amendment 4, which if you don't remember, restores voting rights to former felons. It's something we've talked about a number of times

Starting point is 00:08:40 on the show before, but a quick TLDR for those of you who don't know. Amendment 4 was a referendum on the Florida ballot during the last midterm elections, and it was overwhelmingly passed by voters with nearly 65% of the vote. And this is a massive deal because prior to the amendment, Florida automatically prohibited all former felons from voting. But Amendment 4 automatically restored voting rights to felons who had completed the terms of their sentence, this including jail time, probation, parole, paying fines, or restitution. Also, it's important to note, not all felons, right?

Starting point is 00:09:04 The amendment didn't apply to people with murder or felony sex convictions. And so as far as the overall impact, the amendment was expected to restore the voting rights of nearly 1.4 million people in Florida. And as you might remember the last time we talked about Amendment 4, it had just been added to Florida's constitution

Starting point is 00:09:18 and many have registered to vote since January. But the amendment was already receiving challenges from the state's new Republican governor, Ron DeSantis. With DeSantis saying Florida lawmakers needed to outline Guidance for evaluating voter eligibility specifically so sex offenders don't quote fall through the cracks But because the state's lawmakers weren't set to convene until March We were left in kind of a sort of wait-and-see situation Which brings us to yesterday when a Florida House committee advanced a bill that would actually limit the number of former felons who can now

Starting point is 00:09:42 Vote and it does this in two key ways. One, it defines what would prevent someone from having their voting rights restored. Specifically, it disqualifies anyone convicted of felonies with any kind of sexual component from having their rights restored. Which includes things like having an adult's entertainment store that was too close to a school and certain prostitution crimes.

Starting point is 00:09:58 And two, it requires former felons to pay all court costs and fees before their sentence can be quote, complete, even if those costs were not given by a judge as part of the person's sentence. And almost immediately we saw a huge backlash with critics saying that the bill targets lower income citizens and goes against the will of Florida's voters. Julie Ebenstein, a voting rights attorney at the ACLU saying,

Starting point is 00:10:15 "'What the barriers proposed in this bill do "'is nearly guarantee that people will miss election "'after election because they cannot afford "'to pay financial obligations.'" Continuing, it's an affront to the Florida voters. With Ebenstein also saying that financial obligations in the bill disproportionately affect two main groups. One, low-income felons and two, former felons who committed property crimes and were sentenced to pay large restitution and put on payment plans to do so. And when looking at the numbers according to the annual reports from the Florida clerks and comptrollers, more than 1 billion in felony fines were issued between 2013 and 2018,

Starting point is 00:10:44 but an average of only 19% of that money was paid back per year. Florida clerks and comptrollers, more than one billion in felony fines were issued between 2013 and 2018, but an average of only 19% of that money was paid back per year. Evanstein also added that the bill actually requires the victim or organization the ex-felon owes fees to, to consent to the felon's voting rights being restored. This even if a court waives their payment of fees in the first place, which adds yet another unusual barrier.

Starting point is 00:11:00 We also saw Desmond Meade, a former felon who helped lead the initiative to get Amendment 4 on the ballot, saying he and his organization, Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, oppose this measure. And others, including the FRRC, have called the bill unconstitutional overreach, with some even comparing this bill to a poll tax. Among those calling it that, you had Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But on the other side, we saw people disputing this. We saw State Representative James Grant, who is one of the main architects of this bill, say, to suggest that this is a poll tax inherently diminishes the atrocity of what a poll tax actually was, adding, all we're doing is following statute.

Starting point is 00:11:29 All we're doing is following the testimony of what was presented before the Florida Supreme Court explicitly acknowledging that fines and court costs are part of a sentence. Grant also defended the more strict definition of felony sex, saying, there is absolutely zero significance to the term felony sex. Had the language said sex offender, that would have meant something. And so as far as what happens next, I mean, you have the current version of the bill that has been approved by a House committee, so that's the first step. Then the next step is moving the bill

Starting point is 00:11:52 to a vote on the House floor. Also following the bill's approval on the House committee, Politico reported that the president of Florida State Senate said he expects his chamber to draw up a companion measure. It was also reported that Governor DeSantis said Tuesday that he had not yet seen the wording of the measure, but supported having the Florida legislature outline how the amendment should be implemented, saying,

Starting point is 00:12:08 Do you want the executive branch to just unilaterally by fiat make these decisions, or do you want it to be in a public debate? But with all that said, to simplify it, it's very likely that this is gonna get through, right? Both Florida's House and Senate have Republican majorities, DeSantis is a Republican, I mean, that's Republican trifecta. You know, this is a very big deal considering what a battleground state Florida is going into the 2020 election. I mean, hell, just in these last midterm elections, the races for US Senate and governor for Florida were so close it forced automatic recounts.

Starting point is 00:12:33 But that's where we are right now. Really, unless there's unprecedented backlash, I see this moving forward. But I still wanna ask the question to you, what are your thoughts around this? Do you see this bill as going against the will of the people of Florida, or do you see this as kind of guardrails or necessary hurdles?

Starting point is 00:12:49 And then finally, let's talk about the Supreme Court. In the past two days, the Supreme Court has given out rulings on various cases. One dealt with state and tribal treaties, another with manufacturer liability, one about what constitutes a debt collector, and yet another was sent down to a lower court. But the court's five to four decision in Nielsen v. Priap

Starting point is 00:13:04 has been extremely controversial and a massive win for the Trump administration lower court. But the court's five to four decision in Nielsen v. Preap has been extremely controversial and a massive win for the Trump administration. So what was the court's ruling? Well, that ICE can arrest non-citizens and detain them for months or years based on past convictions with no chance of release on bond. But also of note, this decision doesn't really change how deportations work in the United States.

Starting point is 00:13:19 The policy was only different on the West Coast after a past ruling from the Ninth Circuit. So this Supreme Court decision just brings the West Coast back in line with the rest of the nation. And the case comes from two similar situations. One involves a Cambodian man who was a legal permanent resident. In 2006 he was arrested and convicted for possessing marijuana, but it wasn't actually until 2013 when he was arrested for battery that authorities tried to deport him. But the

Starting point is 00:13:39 way they were trying to deport him was based on the marijuana charge which was his only deportable offense. And eventually the Cambodian man there won his deportation case. And the other case in question involves a Palestinian man who was served a 30 day drug charge in 2011. Two years later, he was detained by ICE. They tried to deport him and he was held for six months before a judge ordered his release.

Starting point is 00:13:56 And the man there also won his case. And in both of these situations, the men were held without bond, meaning they just sat in jail until their deportation case was done. And so people have said that this decision clearly ignores the Constitution, which has many guarantees for quote,

Starting point is 00:14:07 "'all persons in the U.S., not just citizens.'" Now here's the thing about the case. The Supreme Court was never actually deciding on whether or not this was constitutional. The ACLU, who were representing the plaintiffs in this case, argued that holding the men to be deported without a bond hearing years after they finished their punishments was against a specific law,

Starting point is 00:14:23 not against the constitution. And the law they were talking about was the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act otherwise known as IRA-IRA. And IRA-IRA says that the government can hold immigrants convicted of certain crimes without bond when they are released from jail. So what are those certain crimes?

Starting point is 00:14:38 Well, that's kind of unclear. The law is extremely vague and often immigrants who are convicted of crimes are unsure if they qualify. Also there's the question of well what does when they are released from jail mean? That has also been seen as vague and often immigrants who are convicted of crimes are unsure if they qualify. Also, there's the question of well, what does when they are released from jail mean? That has also been seen as vague and in this case the ACLU said that it should mean right when they are released from jail. Under Presidents Clinton and Bush that was the policy. However, both the Obama and Trump administrations both argued that convicted immigrants could be detained without bond years later under IRA IRA. So what that means is that right now, a legal permanent resident could have been convicted

Starting point is 00:15:05 of a drug charge, let's say 15 years ago, and be detained for deportation hearings. And they could be detained for however long those hearings take, which could be months or years. Now all of that said, despite this case being about the specific wording of a law, the liberal justices were worried about the constitutionality of it anyway.

Starting point is 00:15:19 Justice Breyer saying that the law was ambiguous and that they couldn't answer what Congress intended with the law, adding quote, we cannot decide that question without bearing in mind basic American legal values, the government's duty not to deprive any person of liberty without due process of law, the nation's original commitment

Starting point is 00:15:33 to protect the unalienable right to liberty and less abstractly and more directly, the longstanding right of virtually all persons to receive a bail hearing. However, it is also important to note that the conservative justices don't necessarily think that the law is constitutional. They just aren't willing to answer questions

Starting point is 00:15:48 that weren't brought up before the court. With Justice Alito writing, "'We emphasize that Respondents' arguments here "'have all been statutory. "'Even their constitutional concerns are offered "'as just another pillar in an argument "'for the preferred reading of the language of Ira Ira, "'an idle pillar here because the statute is clear.

Starting point is 00:16:02 "'While Respondents might have raised "'a head-on constitutional challenge to Ira Ira, they did not. And despite the court's ruling here, Cecilia Wang, head lawyer on the case for the ACLU, still thinks that within the framework of the law, the case has its merits not including constitutional problems.

Starting point is 00:16:16 Tweeting out, we've lost a valiant battle in Nielsen v. Preap today. Two terms in a row now, SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the most extreme interpretation of the mandatory immigration detention statute statute which results in detention without any Individualized hearing on flight risk or danger adding we will never give up fighting against the senseless mass incarceration without a hearing However on that note it could take years before the Supreme Court rehears the case on whether provisions in IRA IRA are Constitutional or not so really until IRA IRA is rewritten or until a constitutional challenge is decided on. Many immigrants in the United States can be arrested years

Starting point is 00:16:46 after finishing a jail sentence and held without bond while they wait for their deportation proceedings to finish. Really, that's where we are with this one for now. So with that said, I do want to pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts around this? And that's where we're going to end today's show. And remember, if you liked this video, do not hit that like button.

Starting point is 00:16:59 This is not reverse psychology. Also, if you're new here, definitely don't hit subscribe. Sure, we post five Philip DeFranco shows and two morning shows with more coming in the near future, but there's definitely no need to hit subscribe and ring that bell to turn on notifications. Also on that note, if you missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco show

Starting point is 00:17:15 or the Extra Morning News Deep Dive, do not feel like you need to click right there to watch those right now. But with that said, 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 twice.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.20 The Horrible "Fantastic Adventures" Mother Abuse Scandal, James Charles Ad Debate, & More

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