The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.28 Jordan Peele Clickbait, Brunei is Beacon Of Equality, & Accidental Article 13 Vote

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Thursday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show and let's just jump into it. The first thing we're gonna talk about today is what used to be our weekly, but now, I mean, with the internet and the immediacy of everything, the really daily which celebrity is under fire news. Today, the star of that focus appears to be Jordan Peele. And the reason for that is you have these headlines going around, like this one from the Hollywood reporter Rita. Jordan Peele in Making Movies After Us, I don't see myself casting a white dude as the lead. And there were massive reactions to this, but I think to be fair when covering the story, we have to look past the headline and include even more quotes. According to the report, he said,

Starting point is 00:00:33 I don't see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie. Not that I don't like white dudes, but I've seen that movie. And adding, it really is one of the best, greatest pieces of this story, is feeling like we are in this time. A renaissance has happened and proved the myths about representation in the industry are false."

Starting point is 00:00:45 And there are other parts of this interview where he was talking about, you know, the development of multiple projects including Get Out and Us. Regarding Get Out he even says, Every two weeks I'd go, what the fuck am I doing? I'm writing a movie where a black man is victimized and all the white people are evil and I'm trying to get the audience to have fun. But if you could make that fun, that's what brought me back. And he talks about the privileged position and the opportunity that he has, not only before Get Out, but then especially after Get Out. Where he says, You know, following this article and many articles like it, you had a lot of massive reactions.

Starting point is 00:01:21 You had a lot of people cheering on Jordan Peele, saying this is fantastic, more representation in movies. You know when Jordan Peele talks about the myth in Hollywood, it's that people, or at least not enough people, will go to a movie that has a lead that is a minority. And on the other side of this, you had people saying that this movie is ridiculous, it's disgusting, it is inherently racist. You're villainizing and excluding white men, not because of how good they are at their craft, but because of the color of their skin and their gender. And one kind of point, counterpoint to the situation that Gains some traction as you had the quartering who's a creator here on the platform included a screenshot of the headline from the Hollywood

Starting point is 00:01:50 Reporter with the caption imagine saying I don't see myself hiring white dudes and being applauded these times dot dot dot which we saw a fellow Creator Sky Williams respond Jordan's message is fine because there's a massive outstanding debt to actors of color He's trying to close the gap by hiring black leads This isn't an affront to white people, but rather a way to expedite equal representation of media. We wanna catch up to y'all, you know? Right, and the general idea behind Sky's argument there is that if you're angry about what Jordan Peele said,

Starting point is 00:02:15 it's because you're buying into or you're pushing forward a false equivalency. Right, like if you look to Hollywood, the movies that are getting big budget, big studio budgets, what percentage of those movies have historically had male white leads? What are the numbers when you compare that to white women, black men, black women, Asian men, Asian women, et cetera?

Starting point is 00:02:33 And I'll personally say, and I know I'll catch some heat from parts of my audience, I agree with Sky Williams here. I personally don't see this move as racist. I see it as Jordan Peele creating opportunities that previously really didn't exist, or at least not as many have existed. I also think that some of the anger can be attributed to what essentially becomes a clickbait headline, right?

Starting point is 00:02:50 That headline is pretty damning when you don't include literally the next thing he says until the bottom of your article, right? The not that I don't like white dudes, it's just that I've seen that movie. Wanting to destroy industry myths that have potentially held others back before and now he's in this privileged situation. And it really feels like another example of rage baiting people. And I get it, everyone's fighting for views. And even with me fully explaining the article, there are gonna be people that stay locked

Starting point is 00:03:13 into whatever opinion that they had that goes against mine as well. And I understand that I'm fine with that reality, but for any outlet that has any eyes whatsoever, I understand that everyone is fighting for clicks. But at a time where we know that people consume news by just headline or if they go through the article, scanning. And while it's a problem,

Starting point is 00:03:29 even when someone's reading every single word, when someone is scanning, they're going to scan for the things that make them most emotional. Not on purpose, but we're just stupid, dumb, flawed human beings. But that's the story, that's my personal takeaway, and of course, I pass the question off to you.

Starting point is 00:03:42 What are your thoughts regarding all of this? Then, and just a quick story you're aware you if you follow me on Twitter earlier this week We did that piece about the European Parliament passing the EU CD what that means what will happen next what the vote count was as you Might remember there were two different vote count There's a pass on the EU CD in general that passed 348 to 274 But there was also a vote on a last-minute proposal a last-minute amendment that may have resulted in the removal of the most controversial Parts of the EUCD, Articles 11 and 13, which were then later labeled Articles 15 and 17. That proposal was only rejected by five votes.

Starting point is 00:04:11 But here's the thing, the news that we have seen come out in the last 24 hours, I'll just read one of the headlines. Ten European lawmakers say they voted against pivotal copyright amendment by accident. Actually diving into the story, there were 13 MEPs in total that said they voted the wrong way. 10 saying they meant to vote for the proposal, two against the proposal, and one said they didn't mean to vote at all. But main point, the net results of those votes would have changed the outcome.

Starting point is 00:04:34 And so for those of you that are like, oh, does that mean there's gonna be like a last minute switch around, things are okay? No, even though these MEPs have requested that their votes be recorded differently, it does not change the outcome. And so of course, following this news, there was the reaction of,

Starting point is 00:04:46 how the hell is this even a thing? But this also led to a debate. Were these MEPs that inept, that stupid, that ignorant to how important the situation was that they actually made a mistake? Is this a way for them to kind of wipe the mud off of their name, to not be associated with this thing that has been perceived very negatively by the public,

Starting point is 00:05:04 essentially damage control? It brings us back to that kind of with this thing that has been perceived very negatively by the public, right? Essentially damage control. Right, it brings us back to that kind of public perception thing. Is someone evil in someone's eyes or just stupid? Is it better to be seen as purposefully voting against what people may have wanted or to be inept? There's been this whole conversation about someone may have changed the voting order so it may have caused confusion. But in my opinion, that does not excuse someone making a mistake. You are in a position of power changing how the internet works This is in a kind of oopsie situation. This is beyond absurd and if it wasn't so devastating and infuriating

Starting point is 00:05:34 There's almost something beautiful about a situation where people that didn't understand or misuse the technology that they had being the reason We're seeing something ridiculous and devastating being pushed forward on the internet. But that is where I'll leave that one for now. Now let's talk about an update to a story that was so huge, it was massive for a while, it was around this viral clip. I won't go in there. Two. Well, she's saying no. No, I just...

Starting point is 00:05:57 Ready? Ooooooh! So, the girl that was pushed off the bridge was 16-year-old Jordan Holgerson. Because of what happened in that video, she had six broken ribs, punctured lungs, a hematoma behind her throat, severe bruising, and muscle tear. Right, with doctors saying that this fall could have been fatal, that she ended up actually being lucky. What we saw following this incident were charges against and a massive focus on 19 year old Taylor Smith, right, the girl who pushed Jordan. The story went viral, she was identified, she did a Good Morning America interview. She was also charged with a misdemeanor count

Starting point is 00:06:26 of reckless endangerment, she pleaded not guilty, but this month she ended up changing her plea after accepting a deal from prosecutors. And according to reports, prosecutors recommended that she actually get no jail time, but instead serve 60 days of home confinement, 30 days of service with a work crew, and 30 days of community service.

Starting point is 00:06:41 That then brings us to yesterday. The victim, Holgersen, told the district court judge that she was still dealing with physical pain, anxiety, panic attacks, saying, This nightmare started for me when I was falling through the air and I was really terrified. When I was being pulled from the water, I thought, I'm going to die because I couldn't breathe. And I was watching my body change color by the second. We also saw the victim's mother, Janelle Holgerson, telling the judge she feels lucky that her daughter's alive. She then went on to say she believes Smith pushed her daughter intentionally and should be forced to serve as many days in jail as her daughter spent in the hospital, a total of three days. And adding, It has cost me and my family lost wages,

Starting point is 00:07:12 not to mention stress and heartache. After Taylor pushed her, she did not rush down to see if Jordan was okay, she left the scene. She did not show up at the hospital to check on Jordan, she did not stop by our home to see if she was okay or in any other way act like a friend. And so during the sentencing, we saw the judge, Judge Zimmerman, note the severity of Holgersen's injuries,

Starting point is 00:07:28 and told Smith, I think you need to do some jail time. And ultimately what we saw was that Smith was sentenced to two days in jail, she was ordered to spend 38 days on a work crew, there's a $300 fine, and she's also prohibited from having contact with the victim for the next two years. And along with all of that, Smith is going to be placed on supervised probation until she meets the requirements

Starting point is 00:07:44 of her sentence. And as far as what we've seen is going to be placed on supervised probation until she meets the requirements of her sentence. And as far as what we've seen from Taylor Smith with this in court, she reportedly said, the media or the loss of old friends, but what I can say is that I have and will continue to try my best to right my wrongs and pray for a full recovery, not only physically but emotionally to the Holgersons and other people I've hurt by the decision I made." And ultimately it appears that that is the end of the story unless she ends up breaking her probation. So with that said, I do want to pass the question off to you because there has been this debate since this first happened, even until now. What do you believe is or should have been the proper punishment or maybe no punishment regarding the situation? I've seen reactions from the penalty should be so so severe to there shouldn't really be a penalty at all because it's kind of a glorified accident. I would I would really love to know your thoughts on this though. And then let's talk about that beacon of equal rights in our world Brunei who if you are not familiar with you may not have

Starting point is 00:08:41 realized how sarcastic the opening to this story was. And the reason we're talking about them is, under a new law set to go into effect next week, Brunei will begin punishing gay sex and adultery by stoning people to death publicly. The law, which becomes effective on April 3rd, comes as part of the country's new Sharia Penal Code, which also includes a provision allowing amputation as a punishment for theft.

Starting point is 00:08:59 And while Sharia law is an Islamic legal system, the penal code applies to both Muslims and non-Muslims. Although it is important to point out that in Brunei, the population is about two thirds Muslim and the country has a total population of around 430,000 people. Right, so to make matters even worse, this law affects non-Muslims, it affects foreigners,

Starting point is 00:09:15 and it even applies to children. And in response to this, Amnesty International has criticized the law, calling on Brunei to stop the plans to release it. In a press release, Amnesty International's Brunei researchers said, Brunei must immediately halt its plans to implement These vicious punishments and revise its penal code in compliance with its human rights obligations The international community must urgently condemn Brunei's move to put these cruel penalties into practice some of the potential quote

Starting point is 00:09:36 Offenses should not even be deemed crimes at all including consensual sex between adults of the same gender Now when we see awful things like this happening in 2019, right? It's not just something that is old but it's something new we often ask. Well, how did we get here? How did this happen? And when we look at this situation specifically we see that the new penal code was actually first announced back in 2013 by Sultan Hassanal Bukhia to bolster the influence of Islam in the country We should actually take a second to talk about the Sultan This guy has full executive power over Brunei and has held the throne since 1967. He is also one of the richest leaders in the world with a personal wealth of about 20 billion dollars

Starting point is 00:10:09 thanks to Brunei's oil wealth. And global criticism of the Sultan is not anything new. He received a ton of it back in 2014 when he first started the gradual implementation of Sharia law. We saw Amnesty releasing a statement criticizing the Penal Code as a dangerous step backwards for human rights. We also saw people boycotting and calling for divestment from some of the country's sovereign wealth fund investments. This also including the upscale Beverly Hills Hotel, which attracted protests and celebrity boycotts. And you know what? The international outrage did delay the Sultan from carrying out the most extreme provisions of the law. But now the country appears to be going ahead with the more severe measures anyway, and they've been doing so very quietly. Back in December, Brunei's Attorney General released an announcement that the law will go into effect

Starting point is 00:10:45 And despite the fact that this was almost four months ago They were so low-key about it that news organizations didn't even pick up on it until recently But also a thing to understand here is while this law certainly represents a dramatic and violent change It is not entirely out of line with Brunei's legal system historically. Brunei was a British colony until 1984 and homosexuality has been illegal in the country since colonial rule But previously homosexuality was punished with prison time, not death. Over the last few years Brunei has become increasingly more conservative in its practice of Islamic rule than its Muslim majority neighbors like Indonesia and Malaysia. For example Brunei has also banned the sale of alcohol, pregnancy out of wedlock, or failing to pray on Friday are also punishable by fines or jail time. But a big thing that I think people need to realize,

Starting point is 00:11:25 or at the very least remember, right, there are a lot of educated people that watch this. While Brunei is one example of an extreme, they are by no means alone in these kinds of violent practices towards gay people. According to a 2019 report by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association, consensual same-sex acts are still criminalized

Starting point is 00:11:40 in 70 UN member nations. And gay sex acts can be punished by death in at least 11 nations, not including Brunei. Which is very likely that while the outcry against these policies did slow their implementation in Brunei, it seems that they are still powering ahead. And I will say personally, I hope that we see the Trump administration talk about this.

Starting point is 00:11:57 I mean, back in February, we talked about the Trump administration launching a global campaign to push countries to decriminalize homosexuality. And at that time, you might remember there were many that criticized the report as a political ploy and noted Trump's record on LGBTQ rights. People arguing that the Trump administration was doing this to specifically target Iran. At that time, there were people saying that this effort may have been inspired by the public hanging of a man in Iran who was killed on charges that related to Iran's anti-gay laws.

Starting point is 00:12:19 There's also a clip that then went viral after that announcement where it appeared that Trump was either confused or unfamiliar with this move. But like I said then, and like I'll say now, if the move is actually universal, right? It is actually a push. I almost don't care what the inspiration for the move was if the net result is something positive. And personally, I think denouncing and cracking down on a country and or leader that would sentence someone to death for having consensual sex with another adult. You can have people hide behind religion or oh, it's the culture, but what you're talking about here isn't just ignorance, it's barbaric. That's a story, part of my takeaway, and I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts about the situation? What do you think will happen moving forward? What do you think should happen moving forward?

Starting point is 00:12:59 And that's where we're going to end today's show. And for those of you who are new here, you enjoyed this, you want more of this in your future, be sure to subscribe. We post a brand new video every single weekday, seven videos a week. Which actually, on that note, if you missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco show, this morning's deep dive, you can click right there to catch up.

Starting point is 00:13:13 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.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.28 Jordan Peele Clickbait, Brunei is Beacon Of Equality, & Accidental Article 13 Vote

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