The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 5.18 Furious Billie Eilish Taylor Swift Fans Expose A Lot, Murderer Manhunt, TikTok Banned & Today’s News

Starting point is 00:00:00 Today we're going to be talking about what the hell's going on with these Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish situations. We've got a massive update regarding the New York City Hospital city bike situations, massive manhunt underway for a murderer. We're talking about all that and so much more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco show. So buckle up, hit that like button. Let's just jump into it. Starting with a convicted murderer is on the run right now in South Carolina, but people are actually more divided on this than you might expect. And that's primarily because a judge released him. Let me explain.

Starting point is 00:00:25 So this is Jared Price. He was convicted of murder for killing 22-year-old Carl Smalls Jr. at a nightclub in Columbia back in 2002. And after serving 19 years of his sentence, a judge, the day before he was set to retire, signed and sealed an order for Price's release in March. There, citing repeated instances of Price assisting the corrections officers. Once he reportedly intervened when inmates were beating on an officer and preparing to stab him. Another time he reportedly tackled an inmate that hit an officer with a broom. And most importantly, the order cited Price tipping off officials about the escape of a fellow inmate. So that happens and the family of Carl Smalls ends up receiving a phone call one morning in March

Starting point is 00:00:53 saying the man who killed their son would be released that day. With the family completely blindsided by this and Smalls' father saying, they just turned everything all over again. So then they tell David Pascoe, the attorney who prosecuted Price for the 2002 murder and who is now notably a chief prosecutor in Columbia, with him in turn contacting the state's attorney general and several reporters and that starting the process that led to Price's case reaching the state Supreme Court. Now, notably, many states, including South Carolina, have laws that allow for the early release of inmates that offer information or assistance to law enforcement and corrections officers. But there were concerning holes in Price's case with one Supreme Court

Starting point is 00:01:22 justice saying, we have a sealed order with no hearing to seal it. It was never filed. Who knew it? Who could file an appeal? It's a phantom order. And Pascoe argued against the judge's reasons for releasing Price, saying that prison records actually show Price was a disruptive inmate who was repeatedly sanctioned. With Pascoe also arguing that the claims of Price defending corrections officers were shaky at best. And going on to say that the shady way Price's release was handled only caused the Smalls family pain, saying, This was all a sham. Worse than that, it was a secret. So what we end up seeing is the Supreme Court overrule Price's release a month after he walked out in March and demanded that he return to prison on April 26th to serve the rest of his sentence. But surprise, surprise, Price failed to surrender

Starting point is 00:01:56 and it kicks off this whole manhunt with his face now getting slapped on television, billboards, newspapers, the works. And last week, authorities raising the reward for information leading to his arrest from $5,000 to $30,000. But that also isn't the end because there's an interesting political angle to the story as well. Because Price's longtime defense attorney is Todd Rutherford, the Democratic leader in the state's House of Representatives, with him also serving on a legislative committee that helps determine who becomes a state judge, which is actually a fairly unique thing to South Carolina, right? The only other state that allows a legislature to select judges is Virginia, right? And so with Rutherford being one of the several practicing attorneys on the committee,

Starting point is 00:02:25 even before this, it was an arrangement that many critics say causes a conflict of interest. And so now many of those critics have latched on to Price's shady release deal in their push to overhaul the judicial selection system. And as far as Rutherford, we've seen him publicly call for Price to turn himself in, but also saying in an interview that the attention on this case has made it dangerous for Price to do so, saying, we have labeled him a snitch for the entire world to see, something that might not go over well with the guys that he's locked up with. And in addition to all this, Price's case has caused the state to re-examine other early release deals, with

Starting point is 00:02:51 Governor Henry McCaster calling on correction officials to look for similar cases, with the intent being to find just how unusual the situation is. And reportedly, the Department of Corrections found 26 other cases since the beginning of 2022, where inmates were released early for helping law enforcement in some capacity. And in one of those cases, you had a convicted murderer who had served 27 years of a life sentence. Leading to a spokesperson for the governor saying, this report highlights the need for tougher criminal penalties and confirms the General Assembly needs to act to close the revolving door on violent offenders and crack down on career criminals and illegal guns. But for now, as of recording, Price is yet to be caught. We're going to keep an eye on this story

Starting point is 00:03:21 to keep you in the loop. But with this wild, wild story, I got to ask, what are your thoughts on this? And then it's not my fault that I hurt you. With those today not being the words of a toxic ex gaslighting you, but rather Dennis Guider Jr. Because Guider found himself in some trouble due to this thing that happened back in 2021. And we're talking about it today because the body cam footage from this incident has now been released. And so what we see go down is officer Patrick McCarty pulling over Guider in Western Iowa for a warrant in Illinois. Approaches the car. He asks Guider to step out of the passenger seat. But instead, we see Guider shove the woman who was driving out of the car, and he then tries to drive off, with Officer McCarty then jumping onto the hood of the car with his gun drawn, ordering Guider to

Starting point is 00:03:55 stop the car. But instead, he just speeds up, with McCarty then holstering his gun, holding onto the car for dear life. So eventually, Guider hits a ditch, McCarty's flung off, and he breaks his back. And so with that, during his trial last week, Guider's lawyer had the audacity to argue, it's not me, it's you. Saying that McCarty acted against his training when he crawled onto the car and, quote, compounded the situation. To which McCarty acknowledged he was not specifically trained to climb onto a car, but saying each situation is different and certainly didn't play out the way I intended.

Starting point is 00:04:20 So what we ended up seeing was the judge ruling, yes, Guider will serve up to five years in prison in Iowa, separate from his sentence in Illinois. But then also going on to say that McCarty probably should have moved out of the way when Guider started moving the car. And Guider's police chief also adding that the situation will be used as a training point moving forward. So with this, we've seen different reactions from people online. Some saying, yeah, the cops should have known better. But others saying Guider should count himself lucky. Arguing once he started to floor that car, McCarty should have just shot him.

Starting point is 00:04:42 So that's why I got to ask you, what are your thoughts here? Which side do you land on? And then we gotta talk about a huge update regarding a story we covered earlier this week. Right, that being the viral video that happened outside of a New York City hospital. Right, that where you had the white staff worker who Ben Crump accused of weaponizing her tears and calling her actions dangerous. Well, according to the New York Post this morning, the lawyer for the Manhattan hospital worker who was accused of taking a city bike from a young black man who claimed that he had paid for the bike provided receipts he says shows she was the one who purchased the ride at the center of the viral

Starting point is 00:05:06 incident and the lawyer didn't just say that she rented it first he also provided two city bike receipts from may 12th which were time stamped just minutes apart with the post saying they reviewed it and it shows that the bike was taken out before it was re-locked one minute later which the lawyer said is the bike scene in the video and saying the second receipt shows another bike being taken out a minute later from the same docking station and was the bike marino said his client used to get home after being heckled and pressured to find a new bike by the group. The lawyer saying that what had actually happened was that after this health care worker wrapped up her 12-hour shift, she got on an available bike, which no individuals were on or touching, paid for it through the City Bike app on her phone. She then backed it up from the docking station when a group of five people approached her and claimed the bike was theirs.

Starting point is 00:05:39 The lawyer also saying one or more individuals in that group physically pushed her bike with her on it back into the docking station, causing it to relock. Right. So this is an absolutely massive update to that story, not only because that video has now been viewed over tens of millions of times, but also because of this incident, she even put on leave. But ultimately, that's where we are right now. And we'll wait to see what else comes from this. But I got to ask with this update and now hearing from her side through her lawyer, what are your thoughts? And then these Billie Eilish Taylor Swift situations right now have a lot of people divided though for a number of reasons. But the first big question being our fans crossing a line with how invested they are in celebrity relationships. Yes or no. And then if no second situation or the specific ways that people or the group are reacting. Okay. Right. And so with this,

Starting point is 00:06:17 the biggest spotlight right now is on Taylor Swift, but in no way is it a secret that for over a decade or fans in the public have been incredibly interested in her love life though. That also not out of nowhere, a lot of her work revolving around her relationships. Though we've seen her newest rumored boyfriend causing an even bigger stir than usual, because there are reports that she's dating Matt Healy of the 1975, but then reportedly having a long history of making, it's kind of a range of things, kind of either problematic remarks or just outright racist ones. And maybe you've seen headlines popping up, like a situation where he did a Nazi salute on stage while singing the lyric, thank you Kanye, very cool. There was also a podcast that's since been deleted where it said

Starting point is 00:06:46 that he made racist comments about ice spice. But there also being another segment of the podcast that's still up, but I can't play it because then I'm just going to get demonetized, in which Healy discusses the porn that he watches, which includes a site that focuses on the degradation of women of color. Right, and with this, just keep in mind these are kind of like the highlight issues for people. But also, on the other side, for a long time, his fans have seen this kind of behavior as just satire. He doesn't mean this stuff, he's just saying it to cause a fuss. But now, because of this proximity to and the spotlight on Taylor Swift, we're seeing a new round of scrutiny. Especially from Taylor Swift fans who are absolutely appalled that she'd date someone

Starting point is 00:07:14 who has said stuff like this. With him even starting the hashtag Speak Up Now, which is a reference to her album Speak Now, and sharing a lengthy open letter addressed to her online, saying, your voice holds tremendous power and right now your silence is palpable. Racism, antisemitism, and any form of discrimination have no place in our society. Staying silent about actions that perpetuate hatred and contribute to systemic oppression undermines the progress that was made towards equality and understanding. We urge you to reflect on the impact of your own and your associates' behavior. We've seen tons of fans sharing this letter, as well as messages about why they feel like

Starting point is 00:07:40 Taylor needs to speak out against Maddie's behavior. Some even saying they canceled recent album orders. But at the same time, you have some saying this is a parasocial relationship that's now gone too far. People writing things like she's a grown woman. She can make her own decisions without thinking about pleasing the fandom every time. And it's perfectly fine to dislike Maddie Healy and to be offended, but this is just crossing a line. And with this line of thinking, of course, Taylor Swift is not alone. There have been reports coming out that Billie Eilish just broke up with her boyfriend, Jesse Rutherford.

Starting point is 00:08:01 And as places like the Daily Beast noted, this was welcome news for her fans, as many had taken issue with the fact that he's 11 years older than her, especially amid rumors that he first met her when she was a teenager, which is why if you hop on Twitter, there are tons of fans celebrating the news. And so that's why with all this, I want to bring us back to kind of those two main questions. Do you think what we're seeing here are fans crossing a line with how invested they are in celebrity relationships? Yes or no? And if no, what are your thoughts on these specific situations and some of these specific reactions? For example, one of the arguments has been the Swift-Healy situation.

Starting point is 00:08:26 That's fair game because she is such a public figure who has talked about her personal life so much in her content. And seemingly, this alleged relationship would contradict the things that people see in Taylor Swift. It's all incredibly messy, and it's why I want to know your thoughts. And then, you know, putting out a daily news show definitely qualifies as a fast-paced working environment. And thanks to the sponsor of today's show, Grammarly, or more specifically, Grammarly Go, this software is appreciated by my whole team each day. Because Grammarly Go provides personalized generative AI communication assistance that accelerates your productivity and unlocks creativity. So it's perfect for all paces of productivity. You know, sometimes we can get creatively blocked and you

Starting point is 00:08:59 just need a nudge to get your creative juices flowing. And Grammarly Go gives amazing aid in the process, be it working on scripts or coming up with creative thumbnails day after day with Grammarly Go. I mean, even with marketing merch, we can just type in, give me 10 possible ideas for describing a hoodie and bam, clever ideas for describing that hoodie. And my favorite part is that you can customize your preferred style of communication by setting set voice to determine how you want to sound. Or I mean, rewriting. Writing scripts and capturing the right mood, it can be a challenge. But with Grammarly Go, you can highlight the blob of text and choose from your options, make it sound more exciting or more professional.

Starting point is 00:09:27 I'm telling you, you will be amazed with what you can do with Grammarly Go. You gotta check it out, so go to grammarly.com slash phildefranco05 and get 20% off Grammarly Premium. And then, the internet almost changed forever today. Because in front of the Supreme Court, you had two cases against Google and Twitter, and it was focused on whether they were liable for content posted on their platforms. And the Google case in particular specifically revolving around Section 230, which says that sites like YouTube and Twitter

Starting point is 00:09:48 are not liable for what their users post and gives them wide authority to how they want to moderate their sites. And the key thing there is that 230 is pretty much the only way that those platforms are able to exist. And as far as both of these cases, they were similar in that they dealt with families

Starting point is 00:09:59 who were victims of ISIS. In the Twitter case, it was argued that the platform knowingly let ISIS content just continue to exist on there, with the argument being that because they knew it was there, they were liable. Whereas in the Google case, it was argued that the platform knowingly let ISIS content just continue to exist on there, with the argument being that because they knew it was there, they were liable. Whereas in the Google case, the family argued that because their algorithm sometimes promotes ISIS content, that it's no longer just user-generated content and it's not protected by Section 230. But on the other side of these cases, you had Google and Twitter, alongside many amicus

Starting point is 00:10:17 briefs filed by other large companies, arguing that rules like this would make it so either platforms over-moderated or just get rid of any guardrails. And that latter option would just make what is available and shown on those platforms even more dangerous than right now. And so the biggest question with this was, what did the court think? Well, regarding whether algorithms

Starting point is 00:10:31 are specifically protected or not, we don't know as they sidestep that question. Right in the Twitter case, the court looked at the bigger picture with Justice Clarence Thomas taking some time away from his mega yacht gifted vacations to write in the unanimous decision. It might be that bad actors like ISIS

Starting point is 00:10:42 are able to use platforms like defendants for illegal and sometimes terrible ends. But the same could be said of cell phones, email, or the internet generally. And adding, we conclude that plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack. And then in the Google case,

Starting point is 00:10:56 they didn't even consider looking at it, saying that they, quote, declined to address the application of Section 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief. And so that's good news for us here on YouTube, because I think that would just be the end of the show whether I wanted it to or not. You'd either be getting a hyper curated feed where my content's probably not going to show up, or you're just going to have like front pages and

Starting point is 00:11:14 feeds that's updated every second with hundreds of thousands of videos. But another key takeaway here is that this doesn't mean that Section 230 is just safe, that it won't be on the chopping block before the court in the future, or because you have many people from both parties taking jabs at 230 and it really only feels like a matter of time before something changes. And then Montana just banned TikTok. They're the first state to do so, but what's not being talked about as much are all of the legal and logistical questions this now poses. So you have Governor Greg Gianforte, probably best known nationwide for body slamming a reporter and actually pleading guilty to assault by then not serving any jail

Starting point is 00:11:43 time, signing this law yesterday and saying that it would protect Montanan's personal and private data from the Chinese Communist Party, with a ban set to go into effect January 1st, 2024. But it's also expected to face legal challenges before then, because as far as how this is going to work, TikTok users themselves won't be punished for violations,

Starting point is 00:11:58 but companies that offer it on their app stores like Google and Apple would receive fines of $10,000 a day for violation. And reports saying that TikTok would also be subject to those fines as well. But right now, it remains unclear how these companies are actually going to enforce this. With a representative from TechNet previously saying that these platforms don't have the ability to geofence apps by state. And so with that, saying it would be impossible to prevent the app from being downloaded.

Starting point is 00:12:17 And even though some analysts do believe that app stores could be capable of enforcing this, it would be very difficult for them and there would be tons of loopholes. Now, for his part, Governor Gianforte has stated that this law is necessary over concerns that the CCP is using TikTok to spy on Americans and violate their privacy, but also TikTok has continuously denied that it gives any user data to the government. With the company also releasing a statement saying the Montana law infringes on the First Amendment rights of the people of Montana. And adding, we want to reassure Montanans that they can continue using TikTok to express themselves, earn a living, and find community as we continue working to defend the rights of our users inside and outside of Montana. We also saw the ACLU condemning the

Starting point is 00:12:48 law for similar reasons, saying that it tramples on our free speech rights under the guise of national security and lays the groundwork for excessive government control over the internet. Going on to argue, elected officials do not have the right to selectively censor entire social media apps based on their country of origin. And so now it looks like this all moves on to the next step of a legal battle, right? Lawsuits will be filed. We're going to have to wait to see how it plays out. Right. And a key takeaway from this story is this is not just Montana. As some reports have noted, this law could serve as a closely watched test case over how far policymakers can go in banning operations of a private company. But also that's not where the big social media legal news

Starting point is 00:13:18 ends today. The platforms right now, including TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat, all facing lawsuits from various school districts over their impact on student mental health and well-being. With the latest coming from Prince George's County Public Schools in Maryland, which has now decided to retain legal representation so they can sue these companies. And their lawyers saying in a memo they want to achieve what they refer to as meaningful recoveries for districts that have been left on the front lines to deal with this crisis that tech companies have created. And adding, this is about the impact of social media on the students within the school system. And more importantly, the impact of social media addiction and the problems that the school system has to address. And like I said, Prince

Starting point is 00:13:46 George isn't the only school district. They are just the latest, right? There are tons of other districts that have already filed lawsuits with the first complaint of this nature being filed back in January by Seattle Public Schools, saying these social media platforms have created a public nuisance by getting kids addicted to their platforms, and specifically claiming in the suit, the defendants have successfully exploited the vulnerable brains of youth, hooking tens of millions of students across the country into positive feedback loops of excessive use and abuse of defendants' social media platforms.

Starting point is 00:14:09 Adding worse, the content defendants curate and direct to youth is too often harmful and exploitive. And further adding, because, you know, lawyers aren't known for their brevity, the misconduct of these apps has led to increased rates of anxiety, depression, thoughts of self-harm, and suicidal ideation. And with that saying, in this county,

Starting point is 00:14:23 they've seen drastic increases in suicides, attempted suicides, and mental health-related ER visits. Saying this makes it clear that there's a massive youth mental health crisis and that all of this directly affects Seattle Public Schools' ability to fulfill its educational mission. You also have the San Mateo County Office of Education in California making similar claims in a lawsuit back in March, saying these social media companies have carefully cultivated this crisis, which is a feature, not a bug of their social media products. And also referring to President Joe Biden's comments of the 2023 State of the Union, where he said that the social media companies are running on our children for profit. Further arguing that these companies purposefully designed their platforms to be addictive and to

Starting point is 00:14:53 deliver harmful content to youth. And again, these are just a few examples. We're seeing similar suits coming from other parts of California, as well as Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey. Now with this, for their part, social media companies have responded to these suits by saying they prioritize children's safety, that they've installed safeguard features to protect them. But also with this, like, let's be honest with one another. Everyone who has ever used a social media platform knows that there is no tool on earth that could actually successfully prevent these apps from being toxic poison pills. But that also doesn't mean that these cases are going to be a slam dunk for the school districts to win. It's a whole hell of a lot more complicated than

Starting point is 00:15:21 that. There are numerous reasons that make it incredibly difficult to hold social media companies legally accountable for their negative effects. Or with the most obvious one, we even talked about earlier being Section 230, as opposed to shield tech companies from liability over what people post on their platforms. But a very key thing there

Starting point is 00:15:33 is that at least in the major Seattle case, educators argue that this isn't a Section 230 thing. Arguing that Section 230 doesn't protect tech companies from the specific accusations the district is levying. Saying this isn't about content posted by third parties. Instead, they're trying to frame this as companies should be held liable for their own affirmative conduct on recommending and promoting harmful content to youth, as well, or at least, for

Starting point is 00:15:50 designing and marketing their apps in harmful ways, creating harmful content of their own, and distributing material they know to be harmful and unlawful. But even still there, you have legal experts who are skeptical, with, for example, a law professor at UCLA telling Education Week that much of these allegations are likely protected by the First Amendment. And when discussing that specific case in Seattle, adding, they are saying it's a nuisance, it's bad for society. It's a very vague and potentially a very broad rule that it's hard for anybody to try to figure out how it will play out. And an education professor at Kansas State University also chiming in saying, there's no question there is a problem. The issue is how

Starting point is 00:16:18 can social media companies be assigned some kind of liability for this problem? With that, legal experts saying, you know, this can be an easy win in the court of public opinion, but as far as the court of law, probably difficult. And while the proper results of these suits or proper solutions for these problems can be debated, the one thing most people can't agree on is that there is a problem. I mean, you had the CDC's youth risk behavior survey

Starting point is 00:16:36 finding that in 2021, 42% of high school students said they experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness. That's up significantly from just 28% in 2011. And even more concerning, 22% seriously considered attempting suicide in 2021, which is a 6% bump from a decade ago. And also finding that most of the numbers across the board were much higher for young female students.

Starting point is 00:16:54 And that including higher rates of experiencing cyberbullying. With that said, as far as what's gonna happen with these lawsuits, we just don't know yet, but you did have Seattle Public Schools saying, the goal is not to eliminate social media, but to change how these companies operate

Starting point is 00:17:04 and force them to take responsibility, with them seeking in addition to the compensatory damages that these companies make actionable changes and to fund prevention education regarding the harms of social media. But for now, we're gonna have to wait to see how this plays out. And in the meantime, I'd love to know your thoughts

Starting point is 00:17:17 in those comments down below. And that is actually where today's show ends. Thank you as always for being a part of my daily dives in the news. But as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love yo faces and I'll see you next time.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 5.18 Furious Billie Eilish Taylor Swift Fans Expose A Lot, Murderer Manhunt, TikTok Banned & Today’s News

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