The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 5.15 James Charles Controversy $$ Fallout & Gains, Alabama Ban & What Happens Next, & More

Episode Date: May 15, 2019

Happy Wednesday! Lower your phone bill and get a $25 Ting credit at https://phil.ting.com For the personal stuff follow me @ https://instagram.com/phillydefranco/ We are BACK IN STOCK, at http://BeautifulBastard.com and 10% OF SALES TIL THE END OF JUNE are going to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. So come snag our amazing Pomade, Beard Oil, & More! Watch the previous PDS here: https://youtu.be/SwWb7Ffhj3Y Watch the latest Morning News Show: https://youtu.be/ra6RAk0subM Need more news? Check out http://roguerocket.com for more stories! Support this content w/ a Paid subscription @ http://DeFrancoElite.com ———————————— Follow Me On: ————————————         TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/PhillyD FACEBOOK: http://on.fb.me/mqpRW7 INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/phillydefranco/ ————————————     Today in Awesome: ———————————— Check out http://Chrono.gg/Phil for 75% off “Sundered: Eldritch Edition” only available until 9 AM tomorrow. Rick and Morty Season 4: https://youtu.be/dIdk61KN1to How Spiderman Far From Home Should Have Ended: https://youtu.be/WnU1fyxyxX0 The Dead Don’t Die Trailer: https://youtu.be/2f28CzL6WUw Honest Trailers - Speed: https://youtu.be/m0t7IrkG5yg Casually Explained: Tipping: https://youtu.be/Kal1yAZExwQ The Guy Who Never Left His Hometown: https://youtu.be/UIk3_aLwg3I Black Mirror Season 5 Trailer: https://youtu.be/2bVik34nWws Secret Link: https://youtu.be/0FGFensrRmc ————————————     Today’s Stories: ————————————     San Francisco Facial Recognition Ban: https://roguerocket.com/2019/05/15/san-francisco-becomes-first-major-u-s-city-to-ban-facial-recognition-technology/ Controversial Bill Passes Alabama Senate: https://roguerocket.com/?p=10129 James Charles Online Apparel Shop Closes: https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/james-charles-clothing-shop-down-tati-westbrook-feud-report https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/05/232809/james-charles-sisters-apparel-is-gone ————————————     More News Not Included In Show Today: ————————————     Facebook Rolls Out “One Strike” Policy: https://roguerocket.com/2019/05/15/facebook-rolls-out-one-strike-policy/ U.S. Officials Propose Sending up to 120,000 Troops to the Middle East: https://roguerocket.com/?p=10127 Sri Lanka Social Media Ban: https://roguerocket.com/?p=10053 ————————————     Edited by: James Girardier, Julie Goldberg Produced by: Amanda Morones, Cecelia Applegate             Art Director: Brian Borst Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Sami Sherwyn ———————————— #DeFranco #JamesCharles #Tati ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you've been a fantastic Wednesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show. Remember to hit that like button Otherwise, I'm gonna punch you in the throat, but with that said let's just jump into it The first thing that we're gonna briefly talk about today are the updates around the James Charles Tassi Westbrook situation that we talked about earlier This week which is actually interesting because as it kind of winds down if it's even the right way to say that it's still Chugging along and in certain places getting big if you're unfamiliar with the core of what I'm talking about, I highly recommend you watch our Monday video. You know, it's a story that started on YouTube. It spread into our general industry,

but even now, it's getting covered by the CNNs, the Fox News, the New York Times did a piece on this. I think it really touches on how unprecedented and historic this has all been. So that's kind of an update on its own, but some of the other big updates are on the business side. James Charles has now officially lost over three million subscribers.

And on the other side of this, the person who made the exposed video on him, Tati Westbrook, went from 5.9 million to she is getting a 10 million subscriber plaque now. She jumped more than four million subscribers. And even saying those numbers, it doesn't really hit on how big of a deal that is. Because if you look at where she started, you're like, okay, well, she almost doubled. That's crazy.

It's even bigger than that, because if you look through, like, the past two months of her videos, her videos range between 700,000 to 1.4 million views on average. Every now and then you have an outlier. And so really what she's looking at here with an injection of 4 million subscribers is an around 4x multiplier. Which is great for her, and it also makes me wonder, you know, because the start of this whole situation, what kind of sales she's getting for those vitamins. This appears to have been historically beneficial for her on the business side.

But then on the other side of this for James Charles, it appears more bad news. His apparel website, Sister's Apparel went down yesterday, which actually looking into it isn't the most shocking news. Reportedly Sister's Apparel had been affiliated with Killer Merch. And that's notable because as Tube Filter explained, Killer Merch is a full service merchandise company

owned by Jeffree Star that designs, manufactures and ships products globally for the likes of Jeffree Star Cosmetics, as well as Kevin Hart, Lil Dicky, a slew of other brands that used to include Sisters Apparel. But as of yesterday, Sisters Apparel is no longer listed as one of their partners, which of course is not shocking given what we have seen Jeffree Star say

about James Charles recently, notably calling him a predator and a danger to society and now deleted tweets. But what I think is important to note here is we have also not gotten a confirmation or public statement about this business news from James Charles, from Jeffree Star, Killer Merch, anyone. Although I will say I'm also interested to see what's going to happen with the money because if you go to Sisters Apparel on Instagram, some of the most liked comments are how can I cancel and get refunds. Also, as far as James Charles is speaking tour according to TMZ that is still on

Which I will say for him I think it makes business sense but also at the same time could be a liability I think it makes business sense because despite how many people he has lost he is still going to have hundreds of thousands if not You know low millions supporting him, you know his audience before this scandal was just that big Although when you look to social media, we've seen people saying that they want refunds for that as well As far as what I referred to as a liability what I guess I mean is just he could be exposing himself to an incredibly Uncomfortable situation since this has become just such a massive massive thing. Well, yes, you have people that want to cancel They want refunds

I if I was him I'd be worried that there gonna be people buying tickets so they could go to the shows just to openly mock Me and film it and obviously while that would still be money in his pocket I imagine just on a human level, that would be emotionally devastating. But all that said, ultimately that is where we are right now. And of course, I'd love to pass the question off to you. Do you think the bleeding is over? What do you think about this reaction in general?

Is there a potential for a bounce back? Yes, no, any and all thoughts, let me know in those comments down below. Then let's talk about big news around technology and privacy. On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a new citywide ordinance that bans the use of facial recognition technology

by city departments. The legislation passed in an eight to one vote and it makes San Francisco the first city in the United States to pass an outright ban. With a stop secret surveillance ordinance that passed stating, the propensity for facial recognition technology to endanger civil rights and civil liberties substantially outweighs its purported benefits

and the technology will exacerbate racial injustice and threaten our ability to live free of continuous government's monitoring. And in addition to this ban on facial recognition technology, all current and future technology being used for surveillance must be audited. And if a city department is looking

into getting new surveillance equipment or even trying to acquire surveillance footage from an outside party, they must obtain approval from the board of supervisors. However, it's also important to note that it will not become an official law until next week when the board meets again to ratify the vote. So why is this happening?

What happened? And well, I mean, it's San Francisco. The topic regarding technology, the future of it, privacy in general, it's very attached. And while to some of you facial recognition technology may sound very futuristic, it's new, it's actually a tool that government agencies have been using for several years.

They've been using it for a number of things like searching for a missing child, even preventing driver's license fraud. And supervisor Aaron Peskin, the one who sponsored the ordinance, emphasizes over and over again that this law is not an attempt to fight technology. It's about trying to stop people

from taking advantage of it. This is really about public oversight of surveillance technology. It does not actually stop surveillance technology with one exception, which is facial recognition software. And this is really about giving policymakers the information that they need to safeguard these important technologies from abuse. Not from their use, but from their abuse. And among those concerned, it's not all about privacy. It's about the technology actually working.

And for an example why, we can look to a 2018 study from MIT Media Lab that found, quote, error rates in determining the gender of light-skinned men "'were never worse than 0.8%.' "'But for darker-skinned women, however, "'the error rates ballooned to more than 20% in one case "'and more than 34% in the other two.'" But also during a Board of Supervisors meeting last week, there were several citizens from around San Francisco

that came and voiced their opinion. And a few there said that they believed that this ban would actually cause more crime and make investigations for police even harder. My reasons for opposing this legislation are it will compromise public safety and it will create more barriers for law enforcement to carry out their duties. But that said, even the one board supervisor who did oppose the ordinance noted that while she disagrees, it is a very well-intentioned piece of legislation. But of course, the counter to that would be, well, it doesn't matter the intent, it just matters the net result. I wanted to mention this story,

one, because I thought it was interesting, two, it's the first one that we're actually seeing through, although there is a similar bill that was introduced in Massachusetts. But also three, to get your opinion on this, do you think that facial recognition technology should be banned? Do you think that it goes too far,

or it's a slippery slope, or do you think the positives, they supersede everything else? Any and all thoughts on this one, I'd love to hear from you. And then let's talk about the least in no way polarizing story of the day, Alabama. Or rather what happened in Alabama last night

when the Alabama Senate passed a bill that effectively bans abortion in almost all cases. And since this bill passed the state's house last month, now the Senate, and all that's left for this to become a law in Alabama is that it just needs to be signed by Governor Kay Ivey, who notably has not publicly expressed support for the bill, but many still believe that she will back it.

And a big note around this specific abortion ban is that it would be the strictest in the country. It bans abortion at every stage of pregnancy and does not make exceptions in the cases of rape or incest. And that's despite Democrats' efforts to create an amendment that would allow for those exceptions.

And in fact, there are only three exceptions for the ban. One, if the mother's life is in severe danger. Two, if there is an ectopic pregnancy, meaning that the fertilized egg is outside of the uterus. Or three, in the case of a lethal fetal anomaly, which is a potentially deadly birth defect. It also criminalizes the procedure, and any doctor who performs an abortion

could be charged on felony offenses and land up to 99 years in jail. And this law has elicited a number of responses. Some celebrities like Lady Gaga have spoken out saying, "'It is an outrage to ban abortion in Alabama, period, "'and all the more heinous that it excludes those who have been raped or are experiencing incest, non-consensual or not. So there's a higher penalty for doctors who perform these operations than for most rapists? This is a travesty and I pray for all these women and young girls who will suffer at the hands of this system. We also saw many Democratic politicians who believe that this bill is in direct opposition of Roe v. Wade and an attack on women's rights.

And for those of you that need a refresher, Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court ruling back from 1973 that says that women have a constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. We saw several people in the 2020 race speaking out against it, that including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders echoing that statement. We also saw similar statements from several

of the other candidates, but probably the strongest worded opposition came from Alabama State Senator Bobby Singleton. Oh, I think this is a horrible bill still. I think that we raped women last night. We made women of Alabama the model of the new Roe versus Wade. I think that this is just a horrible bill. I hate to think the fact that someone would rape my daughter at 12 years old. That is just sad to tell my daughter that she had to carry that baby for nine months here in the state of Alabama and look that rapist in the face for the rest of her life.

But we also saw others speak in defense of this legislation. Alabama State Senator Clyde Chambliss saying, This bill has the opportunity to save the lives of millions of unborn children. Alabama Senate Majority Leader Greg Reed saying that this bill aimed to quote, "'Express the will of the people, "'which is to protect the sanctity of life.'" And Alabama Representative Terry Collins really hit on the core of what this actually is. That this is about creating a debate

and taking aim at Roe v. Wade. Saying, this bill is about challenging Roe v. Wade and protecting the lives of the unborn because an unborn baby is a person who deserves love and protection. And the thing is, that's not a surprise because having states pass abortion laws with the knowledge that they will be challenged in court

is nothing new. Both Ohio and Georgia recently joined Mississippi and Kentucky in passing fetal heartbeat bills, which ban abortion after a heartbeat can be detected. Which experts say happens at around six weeks into a pregnancy before many women know that they are pregnant. And regarding those bills, organizations have already

promised to take these to court. And in fact, today the ACLU just filed a lawsuit against the bill in Ohio. And with that, we've seen a lot of legal experts arguing that a lot of these laws could be appealed, but that's part of the plan. Because these cases could end up in the hands of the Supreme Court.

And now, thanks to the new justices that were nominated under the Trump administration push through a Republican Senate, the court as it is now swings in a conservative favor with five conservative justices and four liberal ones. So it's believed very likely that if abortion were brought to the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade may not be held up. Which brings us now to the very real question,

what would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned? So first thing, it is important to know that a full and complete reversal of Roe v. Wade would likely not happen overnight. But that said, the court could make a series of decisions that slowly chip away at it and severely limit abortion rights. But still, let's take a look at the country

without Roe v. Wade just to see the most drastic change possible. So an overturning of the ruling would not make abortion illegal nationwide. It would then become a state issue. And some states already have precedents in place, and most of those states do use their precedent to ban abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nine states have pre-Roe abortion bans that would be retained if the ruling were overturned, six other states have a post-Roe trigger law that would ban it immediately upon its reversal,

seven other states have expressed intent to severely limit abortion rights. And 10 states would protect abortion rights, nine of which would do so up to the point of viability, and only one would protect the right throughout a full pregnancy. You know, also when talking about this story, we're talking about the Supreme Court, right? Lawsuits, states.

What about just people in general? Right, there's another question here. Do the American people want to do away with Roe v. Wade? And the answer, at least according to a Fox News poll back in February, is no. According to Fox News, 57% of responders said they wanted to let it stand, with only 21% saying they wanted it overturned. But yeah, ultimately that's where we are with this story, kind of what we've been seeing in the country right now. And you know, it is important to keep in mind that there is still a long road ahead.

You know, technically as of recording this video, it is not a law in Alabama yet. We're still waiting on Governor Ivey's decision with her spokesperson saying that we would get it upon the governor's full review of the bill. Also from the legal aspect, if the cases were to make their way to the Supreme Court, it's likely going to take several years. But that's also the reason you're seeing people on both sides saying that this next election is probably one of the biggest that we're ever gonna see.

It's believed that the next Supreme Court justices that are going to be replaced are the more liberal justices. And given the younger age of the Trump justice nominees, I mean, you're talking about shaping what the country's going to be for the next few decades. Keep in mind, and I don't mean to be morbid here, that's saying that the current justices last. Several have had public health issues.

But yeah, that's where we are with this story. Of course, like with everything we talk about, I'd love to know your thoughts on it. Are you happy to see this happening? Are you horrified to see it happening? What do you think will happen? Any and all thoughts, I'd love to hear from you in those comments down below.

And that's where we're going to end today's show. If you liked the video, you wanna help support the channel, we'd love if you took a second to hit that like button. You can also go to roguerocket.com slash support and help support our daily news with either a paid subscription and or supporting our fantastic sponsors who support us. Also, if you're new here, you wanna make sure

you don't miss these daily dives into the news. Be sure to hit that subscribe button. Also, if you're not 100% filled in, maybe you missed one of the last two videos we put out on this channel. you can click or tap right there to watch those but with that said of course as always my name is philip defranco you've just been filled in i love yo faces and i'll see you tomorrow