The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 6.15 I Didn't Expect That... Madison Beer, David Dobrik, Supreme Court LGBT Victory, & More

Episode Date: June 15, 2020

I was genuinely surprised, BUT very happy to be surprised. :) Happy Monday to ya! Lower your phone bill and get a $25 Ting credit at https://phil.ting.com LAST DAY TO ORDER from our charity drop @ http://ShopDeFranco.com  --  00:00 - Internet Money 01:40 - Ted Cruz vs Ron Perlman 02:43 - Kristen Bell Backlash 04:54 - TIA 06:31 - Breonna Taylor 12:48 LGBTW+ and The Supreme Court -- WATCH Full “A Convo With” Podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/ACW  LISTEN On The Podcast Platform Of Your Choice: http://LinksHole.com WATCH the ACW Clips channel!: https://youtube.com/ACWClips ✩ FOLLOW ME ✩ ✭ TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/PhillyD ✭ INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco/ ✩ SUPPORT THE SHOW ✩ ✭ BUY our GEAR, Support the Show!: http://ShopDeFranco.com ✭ Lemme Touch Your Hair: http://BeautifulBastard.com ✭ Paid Subscription: http://DeFrancoElite.com  ✩ TODAY IN AWESOME ✩ ✭ Accent Expert Reviews British Accents in Movies: https://youtu.be/eGPUbyOk4_s ✭ The Politician: Season 2 | Official Trailer: https://youtu.be/e-wH7hD9Liw ✭ when companies say they are launching an investigation: https://youtu.be/dNBQHlxUGog ✭ Conventions (I miss them): https://youtu.be/RgQdIGKh1Ks ✭ 8:46 - Dave Chappelle: https://youtu.be/3tR6mKcBbT4 ✭ Secret Link: https://youtu.be/fjx1ZPT7CaE ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩  Internet Money News: https://twitter.com/ianrborthwick/status/1272532174936342528 Ted Cruz vs. Ron Perlman vs. Jim Jordan: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/502747-ted-cruz-challenges-actor-ron-perlman-to-wrestle-jim-jordan-after-attack-on Kristen Bell Responds to Criticisms of Her Children’s Book:  https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/15/kristen-bell-childrens-book/ Bell Reading the Book: https://youtu.be/xBTHlWqEJkw  Breonna Taylor’s Law Passes: https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/12/no-knock-warrants/ SCOTUS Ruling: https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/15/scotus-civil-rights-workers/ Previous Coverage: https://youtu.be/kBFO7vrVUWg ✩ STORIES NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩   Trump Pushes Tulsa Rally Back From Juneteenth But Frustrations Linger: https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/15/trump-tulsa-rally/   Tech Companies Temporarily Stop Selling Facial Recognition Technology to Law Enforcement: https://roguerocket.com/2020/06/15/amazon-microsoft-ibm-facial-recognition/  ——————————     Edited by: James Girardier, Julie Goldberg Produced by: Amanda Morones Art Director: Brian Borst  Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Cory Ray, Neena Pesqueda, Brian Espinoza Production Team: Zack Taylor, Luke Manning  ———————————— #DeFranco #SCOTUS #Beyonce Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you have a fantastic Monday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. Buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it. And the first things we're gonna talk about today are actually a few bits of quickie news that were requested. First up, let's start easy, light, potentially non-divisive, although, is that even a thing anymore?

Let's talk internet money news, where we had David Dobrik, Madison Beer, and Addison Rae. And this because on the most recent episode of Dobrik's podcast, Views, they were talking about sponsorship dollars. And in it, they were talking about what's the most you've heard someone getting paid per platform. With several people sounding off,

they end up talking about $90,000 for a TikTok, $500,000 for a YouTube video, and someone hearing over $1 million for Instagram stories. And they're mentioning that it was five slides, and of course there you have swipe up links. And I had some people sending this to me saying, "'Phil, is this accurate?' And the answer to that is, I have genuinely no idea.

Everyone gets paid different and there's a lot of different factors that are in play. All right, what's the demo of that audience? How much attention are you demanding in a singular piece of content? Do you have a proven track record as far as conversions and past sponsorships? And also, does the fact that this person

is getting a sponsorship have a ripple effect?" And what I mean by that is, I mean, look at Dobrik himself. When he has a sponsor, sometimes that becomes a news story. Or there's a whole generation or two that can't think of SeatGeek or Chipotle without David Dobrik. And so I guess my end answer is, I see it as completely possible. I've never seen numbers like that personally.

But also, I will say to the existing and emerging salespeople out there, and obviously I'm biased here, I still think YouTube is your best bang for the buck. Instagram stories go so fast. I've also heard horror stories. Just people dropping crazy money on certain people and getting almost no return.

And TikTok will be interesting, but I think there's the question of, you know, how much attention does a piece of content command? But also that's where I'll leave that story. I don't think a lot of people super care about inside baseball there. If you do, maybe I'll make another video on like a personal account.

Then in a headline that is not from the onion, you have Senator Ted Cruz challenging actor Ron Perlman to wrestle Representative Jim Jordan. A situation that just oozes of drunk girl getting her boyfriend into a fight energy. And what's silly is this whole situation appears to have started because Ron Perlman tweeted at Representative Matt Gaetz.

He asked, you're lucky for this guy, Matt. If it weren't for him, you'd be the ugliest politician walking. Following that, you had Ted Cruz responding with the energy I imagine he wished that he had had when Trump disrespected his wife right and Ted puffed up his chest He challenged Ron man to man with another man I'll bet 10k to the non-political charity of your choice that you couldn't last five minutes in the wrestling ring with Jim Jordan without getting Pinned which Perlman responded. I'll tell you what Teddy boy since mentioning Jim Jordan and wrestling is problematic

Why don't we say fuck him and just make it you and me? I'll get 50k to Black Lives Matter and you can keep all the taxpayer money you were thinking of spending with Cruz responding I get it. You're rich apparently soft. You sure seem scared to wrestle Jordan Meanwhile, it's completely probable that Jim Jordan sitting back like yo teddy bear chill out I don't need people googling Jim Jordan wrestling right now But main point that situation was a thing for some. Then we had more Kristen Bell backlash in the news. You know, she was already getting hate over that I Take Responsibility video that a lot of people

called cringe-worthy and have actually now also made parodies of. And that situation also brought back a previous but recent controversy for Bell. Disconnected to people not happy, she voices a biracial character on the show Central Park. But to now make it a third thing, there's also criticism and backlash connected to a children's book she put out.

That book is titled The World Needs More Purple People, and it's about a purple person who looks for similarities before differences. With Belle explaining, Adults love debate, I do, and debate talks about differences, and it's layering difference upon difference upon difference. I think this, no you should think this. It's just like constantly pointing out divisive narratives. And our kids are absorbing all of that. And maybe we needed something to a bit of a roadmap to show them that it's actually great to start with similarities first. As far as why the character is a, quote, purple person, she says. Hopefully that will allow kids to have a little bit more of a social identity and be able to see similarities. And through that, have their mind opened

by some people who they thought were different. But on the other side of this, you had people criticizing the move, saying that it teaches color blindness, which ignores people's history, culture, personal experiences. Right, a number of people saying this sounds like something that had good intentions, but could cause harm. Though of course, at the same experiences. We had a number of people saying this sounds like something that had good intentions but could cause harm.

Though of course at the same time you had a number of fans defending her. And we saw Kristen Bell last night and this morning trying to defend herself and clarify that the book isn't about a person whose skin color is purple, saying, It's being looked at like the book is intended to teach kids about race, which it's not at all, and I am also not qualified to teach on. It's a book about finding things in common, being inclusive, being kind, and being uniquely themselves. Also adding in other responses, our book was written two years ago and is meant to help kids see past the divisiveness happening in the political conversations. And adding, my sameness comment is not colorblindness. Our book's ending is about standing up for what you believe in and being uniquely you. I think through the lens of today, my sameness was interpreted as colorblindness, which I do not believe in or condone. But ultimately, what I'll say, rather than just kind of saying, hey, have an opinion on this without reading it.

If anyone, whether you were supporting Kristen Bell or you were criticizing her, if you want to see what's actually in the book, I'll link to it down below. PBS actually has a read along with Kristen Bell reading that specific book. And then, I want to make sure that we talked about Breonna Taylor today, the updates to the story, and also the changes that we're now seeing because of it.

Right alongside the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd, her death has become one of the major rallying points of protest calling for an end to police brutality and serious reform within law enforcement. And as far as the specifics around Taylor, she died on March 13th when Louisville Metro Police entered her home in the middle of the night

to serve a warrant. Now that warrant was part of a narcotics investigation, but extremely important note here, neither Taylor nor her boyfriend, who was with her that night, Kenneth Walker, were primary suspects in that investigation. And on top of that, neither of them had any prior drug arrests or convictions,

but police did suspect that one of the primary subjects in their investigation had received a package at Taylor's apartment, which is why they requested the warrant, and the specific warrant they obtained was a no-knock warrant from a judge, meaning that they were legally allowed to enter Taylor's apartment without announcing themselves. Though, despite that, the three policemen involved

have said that they knocked anyway, with one of them later claiming in an interview that when they came to the door, he said, Police, please come to the door. Police, we have a search warrant. With those police claiming that they never heard a response from the other side of the door, and so they began using a battering ram. But, at the same time, you have a number of other reported witnesses disputing this claim, that the police ever announced themselves, including multiple neighbors and Walker himself, who later told investigators that he believed that the person on the other side of the door was a former boyfriend of Taylor's.

So you have Walker believing that he's on the victim side of a home invasion situation. You also reportedly have Taylor asking who is that twice but never hearing an answer. And as the police continue to batter down the door you had Walker saying that both he and Taylor continue to ask who was there. Taylor at the top of her lungs. With Walker then grabbing his gun and firing at who turned out to be police as they busted down the door. Those police then returned fire killing Taylor after reportedly shooting her eight times. Following this incident, Walker, who survived, was originally charged with attempted murder of an officer,

but that charge was later dropped in May. And as far as what happened on the other side of this, none of the three officers involved have faced any charges for Taylor's death, though they have been placed on administrative leave. Now a few notes regarding some of the things that we've learned since then. One, no drugs were ever found in Taylor's apartment,

and two, according to Taylor's family and their attorney, the officers who broke down her door that night were plain clothes, right? They were allegedly not in uniform. Also, another thing that is worth noting is that Postal Inspector Tony Gooden said that LMPD never actually asked his office whether a drug suspect was receiving packages at Breonna Taylor's apartment. And that's despite the fact that the police officers claimed that a postal inspector verified that Taylor was receiving suspicious packages. Though, here Gooden does note a couple of things. The first is that a different law enforcement agency did ask him to look into Taylor,

but Gooden found nothing out of the ordinary. And the second is that LMPD could have asked a different postal inspector, but he noted that would also be unusual since Taylor's apartment was in his jurisdiction and he was never told about it. We've also since seen Taylor's family suing the Louisville Metro Police Department,

calling her death an execution. There have also been widespread calls to fire in charge of three officers who entered Taylor's apartment that night. Sergeant Jonathan Mattingly, Officer Brett Henkeson, and Officer Miles Cosgrove. And with that situation, you had Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer explaining that because of the ongoing investigation, those officers legally cannot be fired right now. Now despite that, on May 29th, you also had Fischer making the move to temporarily put a ban on no-knock warrants. Right, and so with that, you also had people calling for the city temporarily put a ban on no-knock warrants. Right, and so with that, you also had people calling for the city to just outright outlaw no-knock warrants altogether.

And actually last Thursday, that's exactly what we saw from the Louisville City Council voting 26 to zero to ban law enforcement from engaging in no-knock warrants. Also, with this new law, which is known as Breonna's Law, it goes further than just putting a ban on no-knock warrants. It also requires Louisville Metro Police to wear body cameras while serving warrants with those cameras being turned on five minutes before

and turned off no sooner than five minutes after any search. And that of course is a very notable change but also incredibly important to this situation because the officers who killed Taylor were not wearing body cameras. Now immediately following the vote on this law we saw Taylor's mother saying, Brianna, that's all she wanted to do was save lives.

So with this law, she'll get to continue to do that. So we're grateful for that. She would be so, she would be so happy. Also outside of city council, we saw crowds cheering for the bill's passage. And later that day, we saw Fisher saying that he would sign Brianna's law as soon as it hit his desk. Writing on Twitter, I wholeheartedly agree with council

that the risk to residents and officers with this kind of search outweigh any benefit. This is one of many critical steps on police reform that we've taken to create a more peaceful, just, compassionate, and equitable community." Following that, later that Thursday, we saw a senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, introducing a bill in Congress that would effectively outlaw the use of no-knock warrants in most precincts throughout the country. Alright, so very notably, under that, all federal law enforcement, as well as state and local law enforcement, receiving funds from the Justice Department would be affected. With Paul saying that he proposed this law, known as the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act,

after having conversations with Taylor's family. All right, so that's the law part of this, but one of the other reasons that this story has popped up is due to a four-page incident report from the night of Taylor's death the police released on Wednesday. And we're not talking about it today because it actually turns out

that there's some huge revelation, some bombshell. No, in fact, the reason we're talking about this report is it's almost entirely blank. And on top of that, the report checks no in the box marked as force entry. Also, the narrative of the report, which is meant to recount the events of that night, only contains two words, PIU investigation.

And that report also listed Taylor's injuries as none, and remember, keep in mind, police reportedly shot her eight times. I mean, this was so incredibly odd and outrageous to people, you even had the editor for the Courier Journal in Louisville being quoted in their own article about the report saying, "'I read this report and have to ask the mayor, "'the police chief and the city's lawyers, are you kidding?

"'This is what you consider being transparent "'to taxpayers and the public?' You also had Fisher saying on Twitter, "'This is unacceptable. "'It's issues like these that erode public confidence "'in LMPD's ability to do its job, "'and that's why I've ordered an external "'top-to-bottom review of the department.'"

Following this criticism, you had the police department putting out a statement saying that the errors in the report resulted from a reporting program when it was creating a paper file and adding, inaccuracies in the report are unacceptable to us and we are taking immediate steps to correct the report and to ensure the accuracy of incident reports going forward. Right, and so we're gonna have to wait and see what happens there regarding that report. But the final thing I want to hit on is that the situation, I believe, understandably has sparked outrage across the United States with plenty of people voicing their concerns and anger

about how this situation is being handled. And among those speaking up in this situation, probably also adding a new wave to this situation, is yesterday we saw Beyonce speaking up. In an open letter to Kentucky's Attorney General, she wrote, "'It has now been over three months "'since members of the LMPD killed Breonna Taylor. "'Three months have passed and the LMPD's investigations

"'have created more questions than answers. "' Three months have passed and the LMPD's investigations have created more questions than answers. Three months have passed and zero arrests have been made and no officers have been fired. With her joining the chorus of those calling for charges to be brought against the three officers and demanding that the investigation be more transparent. But with all of that said, that is ultimately where we are with this story right now.

And so with this, I would love to pass the questions off to you. One, what do you want to see happen with the police officers here? And also two, what are your thoughts regarding no knock warrants? Should they be done away with? Yes, no, why, why not?

Let me know what you're thinking in those comments down below. And the last thing we have to talk about today is the incredibly important news involving the Supreme Court, the Trump administration and LGBTQ protections. Right, so the first bit of this starts on Friday when we saw the Trump administration

rolling back anti-discrimination healthcare protections for transgender and non-binary patients. Right, so currently, healthcare discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability is illegal. However, sex discrimination does not include gender identity. Right, it just refers to a person's biological sex, meaning that healthcare and insurance providers

can still deny service to transgender and non-binary people. Right, so for example, a doctor could refuse to treat a transgender man with ovarian cancer, or a hysterectomy might not be covered by that man's insurance or he might just not even be able to get a checkup at all. Now that said, there have been pushes to include a person's gender identity in the sex category.

In fact, the reason that we're talking about the Trump administration rolling back protections is because in 2016, the Obama administration tried to extend federal protections by changing the definition of sex to include quote, "'One's internal sense of gender, "'which may be male, female, neither, "'or a combination of male and female.'"

And here citing concerns that transgender and non-binary people have a harder time accessing necessary care. However, the gender identity protections never took effect because shortly after they were issued, it was blocked by a federal judge in Texas. So that basically put the protections proposed by Obama in legal limbo.

And what we've seen since then, especially since the Trump administration has been put into place, is that they've been looking to overhaul this rule for years and make it so it never has a chance of going through the court system and going into effect. Right back in April, we saw them moving to scrap the rule,

but we didn't actually see it formally overturned until last Friday. And in that press release announcing that overhaul, you had Health and Human Services Civil Rights Office Director Roger Severino saying, HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and enforce

the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress. We are unwavering in our commitment to enforcing civil rights and healthcare." But Severino later saying that same day that removing the rule, quote, "'Will eliminate mass confusion that was unleashed by the Obama era decision to redefine sex

to cover a wide array of gender identities when sex as a biological reality is so important to the practice of medicine. But with this we've also seen a number of LGBTQ advocates speaking out. Many saying, well if you're removing these protections for trans people are you really protecting the civil rights of all citizens? Many also pointing to the fact that the United States is still in the middle of a pandemic. Senators Ron Wyden and Patty Murray writing this letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar saying, your department and the Trump administration are knowingly putting the the health and wellbeing "'of vulnerable individuals and children at risk,

"'while blatantly promoting discrimination "'against LGBTQIA plus communities and religious minorities "'by pursuing the finalization of this proposed rule.'" And something that just added a ton of fuel to this fire is the fact that last Friday marked the fourth remembrance of the Pulse nightclub shooting. It was a shooting that at that time was the deadliest mass shooting in US history,

a massacre that killed 49 people, many of which were LGBTQ+. Following this backlash, we saw Severino disputing the claims that the new rules would endanger patients during the pandemic and adding, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, we've gone into overdrive in terms of our civil rights enforcement and that will not be affected. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect in accordance with the law. Also among those praising this move, we saw religious groups, including an executive with the Christian Medical Association saying, "'We are hopeful that this rule will help steer consideration "'of gender issues in healthcare back towards science "'and away from politics and ideology,

"'back to the protection of professional medical judgment "'and the freedom to adhere to long-observed "'ethical and moral standards.'" Now, with all of that said, somewhat connected to that and more in the spotlight right now, we should talk about the Supreme Court. And the reason for that is the Supreme Court today ruled that federal law protects LGBTQ workers

from job discrimination. And notably here, the basis for this decision rests on the same idea as that Trump rule, just in the opposite way. Right, so in this decision, SCOTUS cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars job discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex.

Right, and there, it ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity are included in sex discrimination. Also, if you wanna dive deeper into the situation, we actually talked about the lawsuits that led to this decision on the show almost a year ago. I'll link down to that down below. But to give you the quick summary, you had a funeral home director by the name of Amy Stevens,

and she said that she had been fired from her job after telling her boss that she would begin presenting as a woman at work. And on top of that, you had two other cases concerning gay men who claimed that they had been fired from their jobs for being gay. Now, unsurprisingly here, during this case, you had the Trump administration arguing

that when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they did not mean for it to encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Right, so they were arguing that to protect LGBTQ workers, Congress would actually need to pass a new law. But on the other hand, you had lawyers for the workers saying that the discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation or transgender status

must, as a matter of logic, take account of sex. Right, and the thing is, there was a reason to believe that SCOTUS here might not rule in favor of the workers. In fact, most federal appeals courts have interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to exclude discrimination based on sexual orientation. But what we ended up seeing is not only did SCOTUS rule in favor of the workers, it ruled in favor of six to three,

with all four of the court's liberal justices being joined by two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, who notably also wrote the majority opinion. With Gorsuch writing, "'An employer who fires an individual "'for being homosexual or transgender "'fires that person for traits or actions

"'it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. "'Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role "'in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.'" And adding, "'Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act "'might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result, but the limits of the drafter's imagination

supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. When the express term of a statute gives us one answer and extra textual considerations suggest another, it's no contest. Only the written word is law and all persons are entitled to its benefit. But ultimately, that is where we are here with the Supreme Court decision.

And you know, I'll pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this six to three decision today? Are you happy to see it? You think it's the wrong move? Why, why not? Do you agree with the reasoning? And that is where I'm going to end today's show. And as always, thank you for watching, liking,

and sharing the video, being a part of that conversation in the comments down below. Also for those new here, hit that subscribe button. And for everyone, make sure your bell looks like it's tapped like this so you get all notifications. But with all that said, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.

I hope you liked this video. Subscribe if you like it.