The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 8.29 Joe Rogan MSNBC Fake News Scandal, Viral “Blackout Challenge” Lawsuit Could Destroy Youtube & TikTok

Episode Date: August 29, 2024

For a limited time you can use my code DEFRANCO or link https://bit.ly/4cvl6i9 for 25% off your order. Thank you Liquid I.V. for sponsoring this video! #LiquidIVPartner Shop Beam's Labor Day Weekend sale when you click https://shopbeam.com/defranco and get up to 40% off sitewide for a limited time. Discount will be automatically applied at checkout.  Get https://BeautifulBastard.com 25-50% OFF site-wide on the best size-inclusive tees, tanks, and hoodies you'll ever buy. 68 Days Until Election Day! Make Sure You Are Registered to VOTE: https://Vote.org  – ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Joe Rogan Calls Out MSNBC For “Deceptive” Video Editing 03:04 - Court Rules TikTok Must Face Lawsuit Over Blackout Challenge 06:01 - Nina Agdal Sues Influencer For Defamation 07:04 - Former Las Vegas Politician Convicted in Journalist’s Death 09:40 - Sponsored by LiquidIV 10:58 - People Under Guardianships are Being Banned From Voting 14:45 - California Passes Sweeping AI Bill  18:15 - Mexico Considers Masked Judges for Cartel Trials 20:33 - Sponsored by Beam 21:38 - Multiple States Are Imposing “Buffer Laws” to Prevent People from Filming Police ——————————   Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks, Matthew Henry Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Chris Tolve, Star Pralle, Jared Paolino Associate Producer on Police Buffer Law: Lili Stenn ———————————— #DeFranco #JoeRogan #LoganPaul ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup, you beautiful bastards. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show, your daily dive into the news. And boy, do we have a lot of news to talk about today. So you just buckle up, hit that like button to let YouTube know you like these big daily dives into the news, and let's jump into it. This is a news show.

So first up today, let's talk about this Joe Rogan MSNBC scandal. Because if you haven't seen, it has to do with comments that he made about Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris on his podcast around a month ago. And that because one,

while talking about Tulsi, he said, Well, it just shows you that what they're looking for is not what they say they're looking for. Yes. Because she is a strong woman. She is a person

who served overseas twice. She in a medical unit. So she got to see people blown up by the war. She is. She was a congresswoman for eight years. She is a person of color. She's everything you want. Then two, a few minutes later, he starts talking about Kamala saying- She's going to win. No, she's not. She can win. They just want no Trump, no matter what, and they're willing to gaslight themselves.

But then three, Rogan called out MSNBC saying that they posted a TikTok earlier this month that suggested that he said both of those remarks about Harris. And while that clip has since been removed, re-upload show the edit as. She's going to win. No, she's not. She can win. She is a strong woman. She is a person who served overseas twice in a medical unit. She was a congresswoman for eight years. Yeah. She is a person of color. She's everything you want. She's going to win. No, she's not. She can win. They just want no Trump, no matter what. MSNBC has gotten a ton of backlash for this. People in the comments noting that half those remarks are about Tulsi Gabbard calling it liberal propaganda, saying that Joe Rogan should sue them over this, that this is nefarious editing, Tulsi even sharing the clip and writing. MSNBC is again exposed as a propaganda machine for the Democrat elite and how they will brazenly

try to deceive the American people. And all of that leading to Joe talking about it himself on his podcast this week. They just deceptively edited the things that I was saying, took it completely out of context and made it seem like I was praising Kamala Harris and saying a bunch of things that aren't even true about her. Like I was talking about Tulsi Gabbard being a congresswoman for eight years and about how she served overseas. That's not something Kamala Harris did. It's something Tulsi Gabbard did.

I was just saying things about her and they put it out there as a clip of me praising Kamala Harris. But they don't care about the truth. They just want a narrative to get out there amongst enough people. Now there, he also added that despite rumors that have been making the rounds online, he's not going to be suing MSNBC over this incident. And as far as that clip, it's been removed and MSNBC ended up uploading a new video with a correction saying, we have

removed an earlier version of this post that incorrectly implied Joe Rogan was talking more about Vice President Kamala Harris. He was referring to Tulsi Gabbard. In the new upload, they only included the quotes that were about Harris. But, you know, with all this, I gotta ask you, what are your thoughts here? Well, I think no matter what, this is a very bad look. Are you in the camp that this is nefarious editing, the intent is to mislead people, or do you think it was laziness and just bad work? And I ask that while also understanding, regardless of what your opinion there is, the impact is the same. And then, so the social media industry as a whole may finally be getting the reckoning

that grieving parents have been seeking for years. Right, with this specific story starting on December 7th, 2021 in a home in Philadelphia. Because that is when a mother found her 10 year old daughter, Nyla Anderson, unconscious in her bedroom. So she rushes this little girl to the hospital, but sadly it's too late with Nyla dying in the intensive care unit five days later, with her mom telling CBS News. She was my butterfly. She was everything

any mother can ask for. And as it turned out, what killed Nyla, it wasn't disease, it wasn't suicide or any of the usual culprits. Instead, it was a so-called TikTok challenge called the blackout challenge, which if you don't remember was where you had people trying to choke themselves with something like a belt or a purse string until they passed out, which unsurprisingly led to the deaths of several children, some of whose parents sued TikTok, with that including Nyla's mother,

who accused the company of repeatedly pushing dangerous videos to her daughter, with her lawyer also telling the Wall Street Journal, TikTok's algorithm sent what was essentially a how to asphyxiate yourself video disguised as a challenge to a 10-year-old. It is inexcusable. But in 2022, we saw a lower court dismiss the suit, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

And you know, with that, you've probably at least heard of Section 230 before as one of the foundational laws of the internet, with it granting tech companies broad protection from any liability for user-generated content on their platforms. With the law initially being meant to protect children by giving companies the security to proactively take down certain content without admitting liability for the content they leave up. But in recent years, critics argue that social media has outgrown those legal protections

and begun to exploit them for profit. Saying these tech companies, they're using Section 230 not to protect users from dangerous content as the law intended, but to protect themselves from liability for actually promoting that content. And now, apparently the courts are starting to agree.

With us seeing the third US Circuit Court of Appeals taking up Nyla Anderson's mother's case and rejecting the Section 230 defense. Arguing that by recommending blackout challenge videos on Nyla's For You page, TikTok exercised editorial judgment. And writing there, had Nyla viewed a blackout challenge video through TikTok's search function, rather than seeing it because the site was suggesting it?

Then TikTok may be viewed more like a repository of third-party content than an affirmative promoter of such content. But of course, she didn't, so they're saying Section 230 doesn't apply. Now with this, the judge who wrote the decision acknowledged that this is a departure from previous rulings by the Third Circuit Court and other courts,

but then arguing there that the reasoning underlying those rulings, it no longer works because of the Supreme Court decision last month, because there, the high court heard arguments over Republican-backed laws in Texas and Florida, restricting which content social media companies can block. With the majority opinion stating that a platform's algorithm reflects editorial judgments about compiling the third-party speech it wants in the way it wants. So in other words, according to this Third Circuit judge's

interpretation, when a platform actively curates content through an algorithm, that is the same as the platform creating the content itself. And so now the lower court has to reconsider whether TikTok is liable for Naila's death, and this time without giving broad immunity under section 230. And so with all this, we'll have to see one, how this specific case turns out,

but also two, whether it opens the floodgates for more lawsuits, not just against TikTok, but all other big social media companies. And then in legal drama news, Nina Agdal has taken another influencer to court. Nina, if you don't know, she's a model. She's also Logan Paul's fiance. And this morning you had TMZ reporting

that she is suing an influencer by the name of Hassan Haider for defamation, alleging that he falsely claimed the two slept together. And per TMZ, he made those claims online between August and September of 2023, saying that he slept with Nina in a bathroom after waving a bag of cocaine at her, essentially suggesting that she traded sex for drugs. But Nina, she claims that this story is

not true and accused him of kind of hopping on an online harassment train against her to boost his social profile, right? Because he allegedly told this story at the same time Nina sued Dylan Danis and filed a restraining order against him over his constant online trolling of her. Which if you don't remember ahead of Dylan's fight against Logan, Dylan really took smack talking to another level by constantly posting photos of Nina with other men and suggesting she slept with a lot of them. Also repeatedly saying he had a nuclear bomb photo of her that he could release.

With that whole situation just becoming this whole other monster, some even saying that it overshadowed the boxing event itself. But the main thing as it relates to this update is you have Nina saying that Hader jumped on this to get attention from it. And so with this, you have TMZ reporting

that she's seeking unspecified damages. So we'll have to see if anything comes from that case. And then how do you handle critics? Do you debate them? Do you ignore them? Or do you do like Robert Tellis and you murder them? Right, because this is journalist Jeff Gehrman, and he was a reporter for the Las Vegas Review Journal.

And in the summer of 2022, he wrote an article that would lead to his death. With that article detailing the complaints of employees working in the county office of elected official, Robert Tellis. With that article including accusations of a toxic work environment created by Robert saying that he played favorites and had an inappropriate relationship with a staff member. Now Robert, he denied these allegations, but about a month after this article came out, he also lost his bid for re-election. That loss, according to prosecutors, is what led Robert to

lie in wait outside Gehrman's house, hiding in the bushes and then stabbing him to death when he got home. And for that murder, he was just sentenced to life in prison by a Clark County jury. Thanks largely due to the prosecution having just heaps of evidence. The DNA found on Gehrman matched Robert. The security footage caught an image of the assailant wearing a wide brim straw hat and sneakers, which were found cut up at Robert's house. The assailant also drove a car that looked like Robert's vehicle, which was seen driving between Gehrman and Robert's houses the day of the murder. And that's without mentioning that reportedly the day before Gehrman's death, Robert learned that county officials were about to share emails and text messages sent between him and the woman that he was having an inappropriate office relationship with. Though on the other side of this, you had

the defense claiming that Robert was framed, saying that Gehrman's blood wasn't actually found in Robert's car or on the shoes at his home, with his defense attorney saying, there is no rational explanation as to why the hat and shoes were cut into pieces, except that they would be easier to conceal and plant, and adding that the jury should ask themselves what's missing, with Robert even taking to the stand in his own defense, reportedly speaking for nearly three straight hours and insisting that he had been framed, saying that Garabin was actually killed by a hitman as part of a conspiracy

involving corrupt local business people that wanted Robert to stop investigating them. He also suggested that police officers, DNA analysts, and the district attorney might also be involved and added, this thing has been kind of a nightmare. I want to say unequivocally, I'm innocent. I didn't kill Mr. Gehrman. But after all of that was said, yesterday, the jury came back with a guilty verdict, much to the satisfaction and relief of many. The Las Vegas Review Journal executive director, Glenn Cook, saying in a statement, "'Today also brought a measure of justice

"'for slain journalists all over the world. "'Our jobs are increasingly risky and sometimes dangerous. "'In many countries, the killers of journalists "'go unpunished, not so in Las Vegas.'" And you know, he's very right. Being a reporter can be very, very risky, with the Committee to Protect Journalists identifying 15 journalists killed in the US

in relation to their work since 1992. And notably the group's project coordinator saying that local journalists face a particular risk because of their lack of resources and proximity to those they cover or criticize. But they're also noting that Gehrman being killed outside his home was especially disturbing saying, "'It's chilling to think that there are no safe spaces

for those local journalists to go.'" And then, so full transparency, I sweat a lot when I'm hiking, I'm running, I'm playing basketball or soccer with my kids. And I'm also a weirdo, like I love to go. And then, so full transparency, I sweat a lot when I'm hiking, I'm running, I'm playing basketball or soccer with my kids. And I'm also a weirdo. I love to sweat. But I, like all of us, I need to replenish with electrolytes. And that's where our fantastic partner, Liquid IV, comes in. You know, electrolytes, they are your best friend for beach days and triple digit temperatures, road trips, late nights that turn into early sunrises that all require extraordinary hydration. And y'all,

sugar-free rainbow sherbet is my go-to right now. I mean, it just revives me after my hikes and runs, and they're always packed in the bag for pool days too. Every stick delivers superior hydration than water alone with real mouth-watering flavors, helping endurance and vitality. And there, I'll say especially, I am loving liquid IV sugar-free flavors. I mean, they're refreshing, they taste great, and they have zero sugar and zero artificial sweeteners. Also, the hydration multiplier sugar-free packs, they meet your sweet cravings without the sugar guilt, and most importantly, they keep you hydrated. Also, I'll say raspberry melon's a good one too. But the biggest thing, you know, staying hydrated is crucial to regulating body temperatures, keeping joints lubricated, helping deliver

nutrients to cells and more. So just tear, pour, shake, and drink. Because no matter what you're doing this summer, if you are outside, hydrate on the go with Liquid IV's multiplier sugar-free packs. Especially because for a limited time, using my discount code, DeFranco, you get 25% off your order. You just click the link below

or you scan the QR code on the screen and use code DeFranco for 25% off. And then, there's more than a million Americans, many of whom have disabilities, are being prevented from voting. And specifically today, I'm talking about Americans who are under guardianship. And if you're unfamiliar,

guardianships are very similar to conservatorships. They give a court-appointed guardian, like a parent, caretaker, or even a public defender, the ability to make decisions over another person. And sometimes the decisions made by guardians, they're limited to certain things like finances or health. But in other cases, those decisions cover basically every single part of the person's life.

While some of the people under guardianships are older folks who can't manage their affairs anymore, many of them are also younger people, that including some with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Now as far as how many people are actually under these kinds of agreements, it's really hard to say,

because there's a serious lack of transparency around them. We know things like back in 2018, the National Council on Disability estimated that around 1.3 million Americans were under guardianship agreements. Though the actual number is likely a good deal higher because that was six years ago and multiple studies have indicated

that the number of people under guardianships has been growing rapidly. In fact, more than tripling over the last three decades. And disability rights advocates have long said that people under these legal agreements can sometimes be denied basic rights, which of course was a big point of discussion when these agreements got a ton of attention and scrutiny

thanks to Britney Spears' high profile battle to end her conservatorship back in 2021. While that spotlight was obviously very important, there hasn't been as much discussion about another very fundamental American right that many of these people are denied. The right to vote. Because the majority of states restrict the voting rights of folks under these kinds of agreements in some way. With more than two dozen states having restrictions that differ depending on the type of guardianship or level of disability, with most requiring a judge to determine the right to vote on a case-by-case basis. And seven states literally ban people under guardianships from voting at all, with those being

Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. With many of the state laws being decades or even centuries old and using outdated and offensive terms. Beyond that, plenty also operate under the assumption that everyone under guardianship is mentally incompetent, which we know is not true at all. So as a result, you have many experts and advocates arguing that these blanket rules effectively hold people with disabilities to a higher standard

than other American voters. For example, Michelle Bishop, who works on voting accessibility issues for the National Disability Rights Network explaining, they somehow have to prove that they understand how our government works, what elections mean, and they have to have a good reason for voting who they want to vote for.

There are a lot of non-disabled Americans who can't do any of that. And it appears the Biden administration agrees with that. Because just this past April, the Justice Department said that these sweeping policies are unconstitutional and illegal under federal civil rights laws, with the agency issuing guidance to state officials

making it clear that they can't deny anyone the right to vote just because of a guardianship agreement. And adding, it's also illegal to determine if people with mental disabilities are allowed to vote by using competency tests, which advocates have compared to the literacy tests used to disenfranchise black people during Jim Crow. But despite the fact that the federal government

has literally said that blanket bans and competency tests are illegal, you still have plenty of experts defending them. Like with, for example, Dr. Paul Applebaum, the director of the Division of Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University, who argued that a minimum competency standard is reasonable, saying, my concern is more with the participation of people who may simply not really understand

what it is that they're doing. Others have also argued that people with cognitive impairments could have their votes influenced by caretakers or cast fraudulently. Though notably there, there appears to be zero evidence of any widespread problems.

But also, regardless of the Biden administration's public stance on this matter, it's also done nothing to actually enforce the DOJ guidance, leaving many of these folks to largely fight for their own rights. So as a result, some people have actually gone to courts to try and get their voting abilities restored. Although a key thing there

is that is a very long and difficult process. But this also is others have directly challenged state laws and some have been successful. Like back in 2001, a federal judge overturned Maine's ban on voting rights for people under guardianships. And more recently, an Arizona court ruled earlier this year that the state can't automatically deny voting rights to folks under guardianships without first proving

that they're incompetent. Though notably, that ruling didn't directly restore voting rights, but made it so each person has to request reinstatement on an individual basis. But while we wait to see if and when there's any movement, either from the government or the courts, I gotta ask you, what do you think? And then we definitely need to talk about this controversial bill coming out of California, because California lawmakers just overwhelmingly

passed a new bill that would put serious regulations on AI development. When I say this passed overwhelmingly, just nine senators voted against it today. And before, when I was at the House, only another nine opposed it there. And so really, the real pressure here is on Governor Gavin Newsom, who's getting calls to both sign and veto the bill. And there what we're seeing are AI industry leaders unsurprisingly opposing the bill because of the new rules they would implement. Things like testing the safety of their systems

before implementing them. It also has a ton of new penalties for companies and gives the state's attorney general the power to sue AI companies for any harm their tech does. Although notably that last part is limited to actual serious things like death or property damage. And then what's really interesting is that those opposed to the bill and those for it don't seem to fall

under normal party lines. For example, representative Nancy Pelosi is not a fan of the bill saying AI springs from California. We must have legislation that is a model for the nation and the world. We have the opportunity and responsibility to enable small entrepreneurs and academia, not big tech to dominate. However, she went on to add that she felt that this bill missed the mark and that it was

well-intentioned but ill-informed. You also had other California reps more staunchly opposing the bill and calling for Newsom to veto it. The current mayor of San Francisco announcing on Tuesday that she opposed the bill. And there was definitely a trend here, right? Pretty much every representative from the districts around San Francisco were opposed to the bill. And I mean, outside of that bubble, there's really only a handful of representatives who are opposed. Also, another criticism is that this would just stifle innovation within the state while letting other areas of the globe move forward. Not to mention that it could lead to other states following suit and making a patchwork of regulations and hoops to jump through.

Possibly most shocking for many was what Elon Musk had to say. I mean, he's been extremely vocal about his distrust of California lawmakers, so much so that he's moving a ton of his companies from the state. But on Twitter, he wrote, This is a tough call and will make some people upset, but all things considered, I think California should probably pass the SB 1047 AI safety bill. For over 20 years, I have been an advocate for AI regulation, just as we regulate any product slash technology that is a potential risk to the public. Though there you have some saying this might not be completely out of concern for the industry. With some outlets, for example, pointing out that Musk has long called for AI regulation while also trying to catch up to them and developing AIs with far fewer safeguards than their competitors. Also with all this, you had California Senator Scott Weiner, who authored the

bill pushing back against the idea that this would stifle innovation and saying in a statement before the vote, I reject the false claim that in order to innovate, we must leave safety solely in the hands of technology companies and venture capitalists. He also addressed the idea that this could lead to a patchwork of confusing regulations across states and that he was fine with a federal law that preempted California's. And again, this is the bill has seen some massive changes

from when it was first introduced, right? Because you have AI companies making it seem like it would be the death of innovation by holding them accountable if they royally fuck things up. But I mean, the previous versions of the bill, they were way harsher. Like for example, the criminal penalties for messing up were removed from the bill.

Now you only have civil ones. The power of the AG to go after companies, that was also gutted. They can now only go after AI companies after harm has occurred, even if they're doing things that otherwise go against the rules. It also shifted some of the legal standards

so that developers no longer provide a reasonable assurance of safety. With it now being reasonable care, which may seem like the same thing to non-lawyers, but it apparently is an important distinction and far lower bar. That said, not all of the changes were in favor of big tech.

One important one, for example, was that if you are a developer working on open source stuff and you spend less than $10 million fine tuning an AI, you're not actually considered a developer. And that means that you're not liable under the bill and any issues would rest with the original developer. So one of the big questions right now is,

well, what is Gavin Newsom gonna do? Because as of filming this, he has not given any indication one way or the other. Though you have people noting he does come from that San Francisco bubble and there appears to be something in the water there that just happens to make people love their big AI companies. And then in big international news,

cartel violence has gotten so bad in Mexico that the country is still trying to come up with creative solutions to keep the justice system just going. And one issue in particular is that all levels of the criminal justice system, they get targeted for assassination, including police chiefs, prosecutors, and judges. And so because of this, outgoing president AMLO is proposing that judges now do cartel-related cases while masked and anonymous. And I mean like fully hidden. And in some states, this just might be necessary. Texacatecas, for example, they are one of the worst hit states recently. In December of 2022, a judge was gunned down

after leaving court. And since then, 103 judges within the state are reported to have received threats. And again, all of that is within just one state. And sure, the level of security in Mexico heavily varies from state to state as drug and human trafficking routes change. And while for some, this seems like an elegantly simple solution, it might actually also have some drawbacks. And that, because this isn't the first time a system like this has been used. For example, back in the 1990s, Peru also hid judges with masks or behind screens

when presiding over cases of Shining Path members. And while we won't get into every detail there, you just need to know that they were a communist guerrilla group that had no problem assassinating people. But what we saw there is that while yes, the anonymity did help protect judges, it also arguably led to miscarriages of justice. In fact, so much so that a ton of retrials happened and a lot of the defendants were acquitted. And this is the UN is also wary

of anonymous judges, warning that it's likely a violation of a suspect's right to due process. Also, another problem is that this little mask provision, it's part of a wider set of judicial reforms in Mexico that are widely opposed by judges and their staff. With a shorter version of this being that AMLO and his allies, who easily have enough votes in Congress to force this through, they want to replace all judges by 2027 via popular votes. With the argument being that this will ensure that judges are less corrupt and fix a backlog of cases that makes the Mexican legal system one of the slowest out there. But you also have critics saying this is just going to cause complete chaos in the legal system, right? People with minimal experience, they could get

elected. It guts the checks and balances that? People with minimal experience, they could get elected. It guts the checks and balances that an independent judicial branch gives, and it doesn't actually address the backlog issue. And that's without mentioning, you know, the potential constitutional crisis. I mean, this is so controversial that pretty much all Mexican judges are on strike right now

and they're refusing to process cases. And so while obviously we're gonna keep our eyes on this to see what happens next, I gotta pass the question off to you. What do you think about a masked and otherwise anonymous judge? Do you think the chaos and the danger of the situation there, it justifies it or no, this is a slippery slope or it's just a jump off of a cliff? What are you thinking and why? And then you're struggling to turn your brain off once your head hits the pillow, tossing, turning, waking up multiple times throughout the night.

It is a real thing for a lot of people. But also I'll say, listen up, because the sponsor of the PDS, Beam Dream, is made with the highest quality sleep promoting ingredients to help you and me unwind from busy days and get the deep sleep that we need and deserve. You know, I've been using Dream for years now and I am sleeping better. And a very important note, it does not make me feel groggy in the morning. I wake up feeling refreshed and ready to take on the day. Plus there's no added sugar and it's only 15 calories with a lot of delicious flavors to choose from, like peanut butter, their original flavor, cinnamon cocoa, which I still love, and white chocolate peppermint. And just one scoop of Beam Dream is clinically shown to help you fall asleep faster, sleep through the night, and wake up refreshed. And I'll also say, this summer, I've found myself drinking my dream over ice,

and I've been absolutely loving it. Though, they also, if you need, have Beam's Dream Capsules, which are also great to have when you're traveling. And fantastically, Beams Labor Day Sale is one of their biggest of the year. So go to shopbeam.com slash DeFranco and get up to 40% off site-wide. But also hurry, right? This deal is only available for a short time. And your discount will automatically be applied at checkout. And then, so in super fun news, there's this whole new wave of state laws that could let police get away with murder, literally. And specifically, what I'm talking about is the growing effort in a number of red states to enact what's known as buffer laws. With those, making it a crime for bystanders to get within a certain distance of on-duty police officers when they ask people to step back.

You know, there's been a lot of discussion around these policies recently after one of them officially took effect in Louisiana at the beginning of August. With that, blocking people from standing within 25 feet of police once ordered back. With violations being punishable by $500, two months in jail, or both. You know, unsurprisingly, this law has faced a ton of criticism from many different people who argue that it's gonna make it harder to record officers

when they engage in excessive force, misconduct, or really any other practices that could be considered police brutality. With, for example, the legal director of the ACLU of Louisiana telling ProPublica that often the only way false charges can be disputed and excessive force can be proven is when the actions of police are filmed in close proximity. With them adding, in the absence of video or audio evidence, it's very difficult to convince anyone that the story occurred in any way different other

than what the police report. While the law doesn't specifically mention recording, critics say that it is clearly the intent. With them noting that Louisiana already has a law that makes it illegal for people to interfere with police while they're working. And one legal expert explaining that police work is currently protected under that rule, and the new measure just, quote, criminalizes citizens for engaging in constitutionally protected activity and discourages citizen oversight of law enforcement. And that argument about constitutional protections is one that we've seen a lot, with many claiming that this policy effectively violates the First Amendment right to record police that has been upheld by numerous federal courts.

Which is why we've seen a group of journalists and news outlets suing, citing past precedent establishing that the press was designed to serve as a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by governmental officials. But then arguing this buffer law grants law enforcement officers limitless, standardless discretion

to prevent journalists from approaching near enough to document the way officers perform their duties in public places. And asserting that 25 feet is often too far to obtain a clear line of sight for videos and pictures, and too great to reliably capture audio recording, and claiming that this effectively allows officers to block journalists and the general public from reporting for any reason or no reason on a wide range of events of public interest, including a parade, a rally, an arrest, or an accident scene. Now, with that said, on the other side,

we've seen Republican lawmakers who've passed the legislation and other supporters arguing that it's necessary to protect police from bystanders who become aggressive or interfere with their ability to do their jobs. So again, Louisiana already has a law for that. But there, you have the state representative who wrote the bill arguing that it will give officers

peace of mind and safe distance to do their job, and adding, at 25 feet, that person can't spit in my face when I'm making an arrest. The chances of him hitting me in the back of the job. And adding, at 25 feet, that person can't spit in my face when I'm making an arrest. The chances of him hitting me in the back of the head with a beer bottle at 25 feet, it sure is a lot more difficult than if he's sitting right here. Also, proponents have claimed that with camera advancements,

journalists and bystanders are still able to get close enough to properly record the police. But there, many journalists have pushed back, arguing that there are a lot of key things that they miss while filming from that distance, with one reporter telling ProPublica, you can't even get an officer's badge number at 25 feet, "'so there's no way to hold anyone accountable.'"

And what's more, many critics have said that the law is super vague on a number of insanely important questions. Like for example, who on the scene will determine what is 25 feet away and what happens if that 25 foot perimeter is on someone's private property? Experts also arguing that a 25 foot buffer is just gonna be too difficult to establish in real time

and that the law is open to being abused by officers who will use it to intimidate observers. In fact, multiple journalists in Louisiana have said that they're hesitant now to cover protests over concerns that they'll face criminal charges just for getting too close to an officer. One explaining,

I was thinking about how far exactly 25 feet is and at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. It's going to be whatever the officer wants it to be. And if it doesn't get to court, it won't matter because they'll have accomplished what they wanted, which was to get the cameras away. Then even beyond all that, critics say that Louisiana's buffer policy is concerning

because there are multiple recent examples in the state where recordings from journalists in close proximity to police have shown the use of excessive force. Like in 2016, for example, when demonstrators took to the streets of Baton Rouge to protest the police killing of Alton Sterling. And there you had law enforcement officials armed with rifles and body armor responding with force,

pushing demonstrators back and forcibly arresting around 200 people, including some who were injured. And afterward, a group of protesters and two journalists sued, accusing the police of violating their constitutional rights when arresting them. And there we saw the city eventually settling the suit and agreeing to pay $1.17 million.

And a key thing there is that the lawyer for the plaintiffs told ProPublica that pictures and videos taken by witnesses and journalists were essential in contradicting the police argument that the protesters had been the aggressors. And the two journalists who were arrested said that they would not have been able to take photos that were used to debunk the officers' version of events under this new buffer law. You know, they also said that Louisiana law enforcement officials have a history of targeting journalists who record acts of excessive force. With them claiming that they were arrested specifically because they had been taking pictures of protesters being slammed to the ground, dragged across pavement in zip tie. Additionally, you have other examples,

like video being recorded by bystanders being critical in a lawsuit against two sheriff's deputies who arrested a black woman outside of New Orleans in 2020, with the officers there reportedly seeing the woman riding a motorcycle without a helmet, which she denied and confronted her. The conversation getting heated and the woman accusing the officers of harassing her

because she was black. And so she called her 14 year old son and 15 year old nephew to come outside and record what was going on, which they did. And when the deputies told them to go back to the porch, more than 25 feet away, they refused. And as one of the deputies forced the woman to the ground, the other shoved her son, blocked his view,

and pointed a taser at him. With the teen allegedly saying, "'You can't tase a child,' to which the officer responded, "'Watch me.'" And because this got documented on video, this past May, a jury found that the officer had intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the 14-year-old and ordered the local sheriff's office

to pay $185,000. Right, and in addition to those examples, many have also raised concerns about the buffer law taking effect in Louisiana, where multiple police forces have a super sketchy track record. I mean, the New Orleans Police Department has been under federal oversight since 2013

because of widespread abuses like excessive use of force and racial discrimination. And the state police, they're currently under DOJ investigation after the Associated Press discovered over a dozen incidents in the last decade where troopers beat black men and then tried to cover up their actions. But of course, this also goes way beyond Louisiana, right? Because recordings or photos taken at close proximity have played a key role in numerous high-profile police brutality cases all over America. With, of course, one of the most infamous in recent years being the murder of George Floyd by Officer Derek Chauvin.

With that video, which was recorded by a 17-year-old girl who stood a few feet away, proving essential in convicting Chauvin. And very significantly here, police buffer laws didn't even exist at all before Floyd's death. With experts saying the proliferation of these measures in the last few years is a direct result

from lawmakers trying to claw back ground that they feel they lost. Right, and as I mentioned earlier, Louisiana is not the first. This is part of a growing trend. It's actually the fourth state to enact some kind of buffer law. In fact, in 2022, Arizona became the first state

to implement one of these policies after the then Republican governor signed a measure that explicitly banned people from filming police within eight feet. But notably, because the right to film police has been established in the courts, Arizona's policy was struck down by a federal judge after a group of media outlets sued.

So what happened after that as the buffer laws evolved to become more vague was not to target that specific right to film. With Indiana, which was the next state to pass a similar law, as well as Florida and now Louisiana, all implementing legislation that doesn't mention filming, but requires just people

to stay at least 25 feet from police. And so now it seems that at least one of those laws has been able to withstand legal tests. Because last year, a journalist in Indiana filed a lawsuit after being pushed 25 feet from police. And so now it seems that at least one of those laws has been able to withstand legal tests. Because last year, a journalist in Indiana filed a lawsuit after being pushed 25 feet from a crime scene, arguing that the move made it impossible for him to observe the incident

and it violated his First Amendment right to record the police. But there, a federal judge dismissed that suit earlier this year, arguing that 25 feet is a short distance and that any effect on speech is minimal and incidental only. Though notably, that decision has been appealed

and another suit has been filed against Indiana's law. But still you have experts saying that if those suits, the Louisiana case or any future constitutional challenges are upheld, we'll see more states enacting similar policies. So clearly, you know, the stakes here are super high, not only for police accountability, but for the protection of essential free speech rights. And so for now, we'll have to keep an eye on the situation.

But in the meantime, I'd love to hear from you. What are your thoughts on this situation? But that, my friends, is the end of your Thursday, evening, Friday morning dive into the news. That said, I know we're going into a holiday weekend, but do not worry. I will be here to inform and or ruin your day on Monday. Because like I always say,

I gotta be the most consistent thing in your life, always. I love your faces. Stay safe, and I'll see you then.