The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 9.8 YALL ARE GOING TO GET ME SUED! Joe Rogan vs CNN, Ivermectin Claims, Britney Spears, & More

Episode Date: September 8, 2021

Go to https://NordVPN.com/phil to get a 2-year plan at a huge discount plus 4 months free. It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee! Watch More News: https://youtu.be/_VaF6g_P49E TEXT ME! [phone] Get More Phil: https://linktr.ee/PhilipDeFranco -- Missed out yesterday? https://cred.ai/Phil -- 00:00 - Jamie Spears Files to End Conservatorship 03:15 - Joe Rogan Threatens CNN Lawsuit 06:49 - Outlets Liable for Social Media Comments 08:47 - Sponsor 09:41 - AOC Responds to Abbott 13:16 - Mexico Supreme Court Ruling -- ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ Britney Spears Father Petitions to End Conservatorship: https://variety.com/2021/music/news/britney-spears-father-conservatorship-1235058353/ Joe Rogan Slams CNN’s Coverage of His Diagnosis: https://roguerocket.com/2021/09/08/joe-rogan-slams-cnn/ News Outlets Are Liable for Comments Made on Their Social Media Posts, Australia’s High Court Rules: https://roguerocket.com/2021/09/08/australia-facebook-comments/ AOC Responds to Abbott’s Claims About New Law: https://roguerocket.com/2021/09/08/texas-governor-law/  Mexico Supreme Court Makes Major Ruling: https://roguerocket.com/2021/09/08/mexico-supreme-court-ruling/ ✩ STORIES NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩ Frankie Jonas Seemingly Dupes Influencers:  https://roguerocket.com/2021/09/08/frankie-jonas-necklace/ ——————————     Edited by: James Girardier,  Art Director: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Cory Ray, Brian Espinoza Production Team: Zack Taylor ———————————— #DeFranco #JoeRogan #BritneySpears Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards, welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show and a quick thing before I jump into it. Yesterday It turns out I did a push for cred.ai slash phil that was too Effective and successful and their site literally thought y'all were attacking them Which is why I believe like tens of thousands of you weren't able to get through the application process If you want to still head over there, it should be all fixed today. They they handled it relatively quick. It's my fault They thought I was gonna be pushing Thursday. It was actually Tuesday. It happens.

Yeah, you should be all good to apply and get your bad-ass metal black card. But that said, buckle up, hit that like button. Otherwise I will punch you in the throat and let's just jump into it. And the first thing that we're gonna talk about today is this Britney Spears situation, because the news that we're getting right now

may be some of the biggest updates that we've gotten. This could be Britney Spears getting genuinely closer to getting out of her conservatorship, getting her life back, or this could just be a strategic move by her father, Jamie Spears. Because if you looked at the news over the past 12 hours, you're seeing reports saying Jamie Spears

is reportedly petitioning to end the conservatorship Britney's been in for the last 13 years. This after it was confirmed and Britney made it clear that she finds the conservatorship to be abusive, she wants her father out, she wants the whole thing to be done. As far as what he would do, you had Jamie earlier in the summer saying that he would step aside from the conservatorship at some abusive. She wants her father out. She wants the whole thing to be done. As far as what he would do, you had Jamie earlier in the summer saying

that he would step aside from the conservatorship at some point when the time was right, but he had no clear timeline. Then last week, Britney's lawyer, Matthew Rosengart, demanded that he step aside immediately and accused him of trying to extort Britney and negotiating a settlement for his departure. The hearing regarding that set to be held September 29th.

And now we have Jamie himself suggesting that the conservatorship finally come to an end with his attorney writing in a filing. "'Recent events suggesting that the conservatorship finally come to an end with his attorney writing in a filing. "'Recent events related to this conservatorship "'have called into question whether circumstances "'have changed to such an extent "'that grounds for establishment of a conservatorship "'may no longer exist.'"

And adding, as Mr. Spears has said again and again, "'All he wants is what is best for his daughter. "'If Ms. Spears wants to terminate the conservatorship "'and believes that she can handle her own life, "'Mr. Spears believes that she should get that chance. And this, of course, is a potentially huge, huge moment for Britney and the Free Britney movement. But, of course, there are still more steps to come.

Rosengart making it extremely clear that he wants to investigate Jamie Spears over potential misconduct, also doubling down on that statement celebrating in recent news, saying, "'Having exposed his misconduct and improper plan to hold his daughter hostage by trying to extract a multi-million dollar settlement,

Mr. Spears has now effectively surrendered. To the extent Mr. Spears believes he can try to avoid accountability and justice, including sitting for a sworn deposition and answering other discovery under oath, he is incorrect and our investigation into financial mismanagement and other issues will continue. With Rosengart also slamming Jamie's team

for allegedly inappropriately leaking the petition to the media before it was served on council. There's also been tons of speculation as to why Jamie is making the choice to end this, especially since he asked to end it without a medical evaluation, and according to TMZ here, he's calling their bluff. Multiple sources say Jamie believes Britney has not gotten better, he thinks she's gotten worse. With that report continuing that Jamie doesn't actually want the conservatorship to end, especially not without an evaluation. But quote, Jamie does not believe the judge would terminate the conservatorship without a mental evaluation. And he has said privately,

he's sure the evaluation would present an insurmountable case to maintain the conservatorship. So he would get what he wants, maintaining the conservatorship, while also ending the lingering attacks targeting him. But a big thing that I want to note there is that is all speculation, right? We're gonna have to wait and see what actually happens,

what develops. Because honestly, for the most part, we're on the outside looking in. Is this Jamie Spears effectively just trying to avoid accountability? Is this some strategy to actually maintain his position? Yeah, we'll have to wait and see. But in the meantime, of course,

I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below. Then, in what's gonna easily be one of the most divisive topics in today's show, which is crazy, because we're also talking about abortion today, let's talk about Joe Rogan. This was one of the most heavily requested stories today. So if you missed it, one of the biggest podcasters in the world

last Wednesday announced that he was diagnosed with COVID-19 the Sunday before. And saying that once he found out, he threw a whole slew of medications at her, right? The whole kitchen sink. Or saying monoclonal antibodies, Z-Pak, prednisone, vitamin drips, and what has become the highlight for topic of conversation, ivermectin.

And before we go further, I just want to say, this is where people on both sides are getting me pissed off. I'm not saying it's an equal amount, but it's where I'm getting pissed off. When I first covered this story, I made a joke about monoclonal antibodies being the smart kid in the group project. Based off of all the good research right now,

it appears that that is the thing that's helping people the most out of anything that was listed here. But to my friends on the left or vaccine supporters or however you identify, ivermectin isn't just horse pace. Yes, it is commonly known for its animal formulations that are meant to treat or prevent parasites in animals. And there has been an issue of Americans

actually taking the animal formulation, which is a problem. But also like when I last reported, I said, I hope that Joe Rogan didn't dive down the rabbit hole that he's taking the human version. There are ivermectin tablets that are for human beings. They're used usually in very specific scenarios, things like treating very specific parasitic worms. There are also topical versions for like rosacea and lice.

But also for those who are choosing ivermectin over getting vaccinated right now, understand it is not approved by the FDA or recommended by the FDA for COVID-19. But also then for both sides or everyone in this story, there are clinical trials trying to see if there is any way that it helped. Right, so while so many people are treating this

like a black and white situation, there are shades of gray here. I still would not go out and recommend you take this because the FDA is not saying it yet. Then to take us back to the core of this story, if you're criticizing Joe Rogan, like I have, you do your viewers and just the conversation and debate in general a disservice by just saying,

"'Joe Rogan is gobbling up horse pace' without further looking into the story. Joe Rogan on his podcast yesterday even addressing how some places are reporting on this, even talking about potential litigation. Bro, do I have to sue CNN? I don't know. I don't know. Do you? They're making shit up. They keep saying I'm taking horse dewormer. I literally got it from a doctor. It's an American company. Joe going on to say that he got it from a doctor who works with the frontline COVID-19 critical care alliance. Though, as people like Hasan Piker have noted,

that group is actually behind a faulty study about ivermectin that ended up being pulled by its publisher because it did not, quote, offer an objective nor balanced scientific contributions regarding ivermectin as a COVID treatment. Still, Rogan then went on to slam the media for not focusing on his recovery. But what they didn't highlight is that I got better.

You got better quickly. They tried to make it seem as if like, I'm doing some wacky that's completely ineffective. And CNN was saying that I'm a distributor of misinformation. We've also seen people pushing back on Joe Rogan here, arguing that it's been well documented that Joe has spread vaccine misinformation, that Joe Rogan has actually acknowledged

that he has spread untrue things himself, with his general defense being, "'I, Joe Rogan, am a mor he has spread untrue things himself with his general defense being, "'I, Joe Rogan, am a moron. You shouldn't listen to me.'" And as far as pushing back against people saying you're doing some wacky shit that's just completely ineffective, well, yes, there are people that are doing that.

I think the actual thing is way more complicated. But if you look through a lot of his comments, the main takeaway for a lot of people is ivermectin by itself stopped Joe Rogan's COVID in its tracks, with very little credit being given to the smart kid in the group, monoclonal antibodies, the thing that even gave Trump. But ultimately that's where I'm gonna end this.

Cause one, I know I'm gonna get shit from both sides because this breakdown doesn't fit anyone's particular narrative. Two, and I think you can tell it from a few of the stories probably in this past week, I'm kind of just tired of talking about it. Like nothing moves the needle. It just feels like the debate and fight

around hydroxychloroquine, but now we have vaccines. Remember hydroxychloroquine? And I'm not saying we're gonna get the same end result. It just feels like same shit and fight around a hydroxychloroquine, but now we have vaccines. Remember hydroxychloroquine? And I'm not saying we're gonna get the same end result. It just feels like same shit, different coat of paint. Then while you're maybe leaving a comment on this video, there's actually news about that. That's because this recent ruling from Australia's high court could have massive implications for how news companies

regulate the content they post to social media. And that's because yesterday the court said that those companies can be held liable for what everyday users comment on their posts. Or as University of Sydney law professor David Rolfe explained, "'That may mean anyone who runs a social media page "'can theoretically be sued over disparaging comments

"'posted by readers or random group members, "'even if you aren't aware of the comment.'" Which as a commentator in the news space is horrifying to hear. Right, as far as the incident that led to this ruling, it actually happened back in 2016 when multiple news outlets posted disturbing photos of a teen by the name of Dylan Voller

being restrained at a youth detention center. While that coverage led to inquiries about the conditions of such centers, we later saw Voller suing several outlets, alleging that Facebook users were making defamatory comments on their posts and that by inviting these comments, the outlets were acting as publishers.

And so now what we're seeing is the high court siding with Voller to an extent, agreeing that media companies are in fact publishers of third party Facebook comments and can be legally responsible for their content. However, specifically to this story, it didn't actually make a decision on whether or not the comments Voller cited were defamatory.

So from here, Voller is actually gonna have to try to prove that, but for now, it seems like outlets are gonna have to make the tough decision on how to adapt to this new ruling. For example, one, you could carry on like normal at the risk of potentially getting sued. Two, they could moderate comments, though you could still possibly miss comments,

get sued for that. It could also be incredibly time intensive, depending on the number of comments. Or three, you could do the nuclear option, which is remove all comments. And on top of all of this, there are fears that this ruling could affect everyday users as well,

since they could also, quote, "'be held liable as publishers' where they post material to their Facebook pages and encourage engagement. So with this story, I want to know, does this ruling make sense to you? Do you see this as accountability online or no? Is it wrong to, as a one Gizmodo writer put it,

hold users responsible for the content of complete strangers? Personally, I'm shooting this over to my legal team to figure out what the hell we should do, if there are any international implications here, because I would hate to have to ban comments. So yeah, for a number of reasons, I'm gonna be keeping my eyes on this story

and yeah, let me know what you think. But from that, I wanna take a second to thank the fantastic sponsor of today's show, nordvpn.com slash film. Now, if you're a long time viewer, you know that I spent the last few years telling you about NordVPN and the many reasons why you should be using it.

With NordVPN, all your internet data is protected behind a wall of next generation encryption and NordVPN servers are ultra fast. So there is no sacrificing speed for security with Nord you get bold, right? As you beautiful bastards know from those bathroom shows, my family and I just recently took a vacation. And I mean, that's a fantastic example

of where I use Nord, it's at the airport. Definitely not taking a chance with my phone on a public server. The same goes from when I was making that show from the bathroom of the hotel. With Nord, I'm always protected. With their strict no logs policy, they don't track, collect, or share your private data.

So make NordVPN a part of your online security plan. Head on over to nordvpn.com slash phil right now to get a huge discount on a two year plan. Plus you'll get a bonus gift of four additional months free when you sign up today. And it's risk-free with Nord's 30 day money back guarantee. So what are you waiting for? Go to nordvpn.com slash phil.

Then let's definitely talk about Texas Governor Greg Abbott in the news. Right now getting a ton of backlash for defending the state's new law that bans abortions after six weeks, which, of course, is before many people even know that they're pregnant. And he's specifically being hit for his defense of the fact that it does not provide exceptions for rape or incest. With most of this stemming from a press conference yesterday where we saw Abbott respond to this reporter's question. Why force a rape or incest victim to carry a pregnancy to term? It doesn't require that at all because obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person

to be able to get an abortion. So for one, it doesn't provide that. That said, however, let's make something very clear. Rape is a crime, and Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets. And so unsurprisingly, Abbott was met with a ton of criticism.

Some people taking aim at the plenty of time comment. This, including the likes of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who called Abbott's comments disgusting in this now viral clip. I don't know if he is familiar with a menstruating person's body. In fact, I do know that he's not familiar

with a woman, with a female or menstruating person's body, because if he did, he would know that you don't have six weeks. But in case no one has informed him before in his life, six weeks pregnant means two weeks late for your period. And two weeks late on your period for any person, any person with a menstrual cycle, can happen if you're stressed, if your diet changes, or for really no reason at all. And that was echoed by a lot of other people who pointed to a figure given by Planned Parenthood that found 85 to 90% of people who obtain abortions in Texas are at least six weeks into their pregnancy.

Also with this, we had people taking aim at Abbott's claim that he was going to quote, eliminate all rapists. There are people in general saying, what the fuck are you talking about? You're talking about prosecuting people after they commit rapes? Governor Abbott literally can't eliminate all of them unless one, it turns out that all rapes

have been perpetrated by Governor Abbott and he's decided to stop, which thank you. Two, Abbott in secret has developed a minority report program where they're able to find future crimes. Right now in general, we saw people piling on, pointing out how ignorant his remarks are. Cause I mean, it's a horrible stat.

According to data from the Justice Department analyzed by the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, just one out of every three rapes and sexual assaults are reported. And beyond that, out of every thousand assaults, just 50 lead to arrest and only 25 are incarcerated, meaning that more than 97% of people who commit assault walk free,

which is also something else that AOC hit on. The majority of people who are raped and who are sexually assaulted are assaulted by someone that they know. And these aren't just predators that are walking around the streets at night. They are people's uncles. They are teachers.

They are family friends. And when something like that happens, it takes a very long time, first of all, for any victim to come forward. And second of all, when a victim comes forward, they don't necessarily want to bring their case into the carceral system. I think that's one of the key things with this law.

Yes, I know a lot of people have opinions that are black and white regarding abortion in general, a plain yes or a plain no. I think the fact that this Texas law so specifically abandons and even targets victims. I think that's why Abbott and supporters of this bill are maybe getting a lot more heat than they expected. That of course the

weaponization of your neighbors, the tip line, all that stuff. But with this story in general, I would love to know your thoughts. Do you think Abbott's defense here is valid or no? He's talking out of his ass. Why? Why not? Any and all thoughts, let me know. Also in related international news, we should look to Mexico making abortion headlines this week as well. With Mexico's Supreme Court unanimously voting 10 to 0 to strike down a series of laws from Coahuila's state that sought to effectively criminalize having an abortion with three years in prison. Justice Norma Pena Hernandez saying that,

according to a secular state, the defense and autonomy of the privacy of women must be unconditional according to her life plan and presume that her decision is rational, deliberate, and autonomous. As well as the president of the court approaching the topic from a different angle, writing that the criminalization of abortion

punishes the poorest women, the most marginalized, the forgotten and most discriminated against in the country. It's a crime that in its nature punishes poverty. And in general, the ruling has been celebrated in Mexico as a major win for women's rights and means that abortions before 12 weeks cannot be criminalized. Though of note, this may actually be a shallow victory

because before the ruling, only three Mexican states and Mexico City explicitly allowed abortion. And while Tuesday's ruling does technically apply to the whole nation, it does require legal challenges in the remaining 28 states for them to go into effect locally, which will take time. Otherwise it would require changes in state law by local legislatures.

And that would actually be a huge challenge. And I say that because after Mexico city passed an ordinance in 2007 that allowed abortions, which the Supreme Court found constitutional, over half the states passed laws explicitly stating that life began at conception. But at least now, for supporters, there is a roadmap for legalization despite state laws.

Also, to bring it back home a bit, because we're the United States and everything needs to be about us, this entire ruling may actually also provide relief to some Texans. Because if you look at a map, Coahuila is just across the US border, giving Texans another place to seek abortions.

And hey, while yes, someone could go to other US states, medical tourism in New Mexico is absolutely huge. And it's not uncommon for people in border states to make the trip down south to seek medical care. You know, ultimately with this story, or really anything else that stood out to you today, I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below,

because yes, this is a news show, but it's also a conversation. Yeah, with that said, thank you for watching. Like and subscribe and join in the family. And of course, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.