UNBIASED - Social Media CEOs Testify, Disney vs. DeSantis Dismissed, Biden Issues Sanctions Against Israelis, California Reparations Bills, Universal Removes Music from TikTok, and More.

Episode Date: February 2, 2024

1. CEOs of Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, X, and Discord Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee Re: Child Exploitation (1:20)2. Judge Dismisses Disney's Lawsuit Against Gov. DeSantis (6:53)3. President Biden Issues Sanctions Against Israelis in West Bank (11:55)4. Universal Removes All Music from TikTok After Negotiations Fail (13:22)5. American Families of Hamas Victims Sue Iran, Syria, and Binance for Assisting Hamas (16:43)6. Judge in California Strikes Down Law Requiring Background Checks for Firearm Ammunition Purchases (19:14)7. California to Become First State to Introduce Reparations Measures to State Legislature (22:13)8. Leaked Florida Dept. of Highway Safety Memo Says Transgenders Can No Longer Change Gender on ID (23:34)9. ONE LINERS (25:44)10. NOT EVERYTHING IS BAD: Good News of the Week (27:12)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. I'm your host, Jordan, and I hope you enjoy the show. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Friday, February 2nd, 2024. This episode was recorded yesterday around 5 p.m. Eastern time. Today, kind of like last Friday, it's a free-for-all Friday. Not necessarily deep dives, not necessarily quick hitters, kind of just a bunch of stories thrown in varying lengths. And then I will do one-liners and we'll finish up with Not Everything Is Bad,

which is of course my Friday segment of good news to leave you feeling a little bit happier going into the weekend. Before we get into the stories, let me give you my reminder. You guys know it by now. If you haven't already, or if you're new here and you enjoy what you hear today, please go ahead and leave me a review on whatever podcast platform you listen on. Or if you're a YouTube viewer, just hit that thumbs up button and subscribe to my channel because those kinds of things really help me get my name out there and also help kind of show other people why they should tune into my show, why they should listen. So that is my one ask of you.

And now, without further ado, we can get into today's stories. The CEOs of five major social media platforms, Meta, TikTok, Snap, Discord, and X, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. Their testimony was regarding child exploitation and the harms that their respective platforms yield to teenagers and children, and the various situations that were sort of discussed involved drug deals on these social media apps, suicides, bullying, sexual exploitation, and things of the like. The hearing was really to help increase support for federal legislation, which I'll talk about a little bit more in a minute, but let's first walk through some of the highlights, if you

will, of the testimony. And I'm not going to go through every single thing that happened at the hearing, otherwise we would be here for six hours. I do have the testimony linked for you if you're interested in watching it. But again, I'm just going to kind of touch on the highlights. So Zuckerberg and Chu, the CEOs of Meta and TikTok respectively, faced most of the brunt of the criticism. In one of the more heated exchanges, Senator Josh Hawley repeatedly asked Zuckerberg about Meta's own internal research that was brought to light by a whistleblower and started this dialogue by questioning Zuckerberg about his opening statement. And that opening statement said in part, quote,

mental health is a complex issue and the existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health outcomes, end quote. Hawley then presented a quote from Metta's own internal study that said, quote, we, meaning Metta, make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls, end quote. And another study that read, quote, teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression, end quote. So Hawley interpreted these studies to mean that teenagers are saying Instagram is making their lives worse, whereas Zuckerberg disagreed, saying that that's not what those findings show and that

Hawley's interpretation is a mischaracterization. The two argued for a minute over whether Holly's interpretation was true or not, and then Holly moved on to sexual exploitation statistics. Specifically, Holly cited two statistics from a metal whistleblower who previously testified before Congress that 37% of Instagram users between the ages of 13 and 15 years old had encountered nudity on the platform in that prior seven day period. In the same seven day period, 24% of Instagram users in that same age range received unwanted sexual advances. And again, in that same seven day period, 17% of users aged 13 to 15 had encountered self-harm content. Now, those statistics were sent to Zuckerberg by this whistleblower, which led to Hawley asking Zuckerberg, who did you fire for

this when this came to your attention? And Zuckerberg responded, we studied this because we want to improve our services. Hawley cut him off, asked Zuckerberg three more times who got fired, and Zuckerberg finally said he wouldn't answer that, that he didn't find it appropriate to talk about HR decisions, but that it's Meta's job to constantly improve their tools based on these studies and findings. Afterwards, Holly asked Zuckerberg if he wanted to apologize to the parents who have lost children who were sitting in the room with them. Zuckerberg then turned around to the parents and said, quote, I am sorry for everything you have been through. No one should go through the things

that your families have suffered. And this is why we invest so much. And we are going to continue doing industry wide efforts to make sure no one has to go through the things that your families have had to suffer. End quote. Both Hawley and Senator Lindsey Graham accused Zuckerberg of running a platform that is killing both children and teenagers, with Graham telling Zuckerberg that he had blood on his hands. TikTok's CEO, Chu, he faced questions about the company's ties to China. This is something that we've seen before. So perhaps you remember the last time that Chu testified to Congress, he had talked about Project Texas. Project Texas was essentially an effort by TikTok to keep all of the U.S. data in the

U.S., and this is because lawmakers were threatening to ban TikTok nationwide. Well, recently on Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal published this report that said workers with Project X have sometimes been instructed to share data with other parts of the TikTok company or with ByteDance, which is the Chinese parent company. So the senators questioned Chu about this Wall Street Journal report, to which Chu responded that multiple aspects of that article were inaccurate and stated again that TikTok has never shared any user data with the Chinese government. So again, Zuckerberg and Chu faced, you know, the majority of the heat. The other CEOs also faced questions regarding the same issues, but really the lawmakers were

essentially trying to get down to the bottom of what sort of tools these platforms have implemented to solve the ongoing problems and more so why these platforms haven't done enough to protect teenagers and children given their resources, their immense amount of resources. And by getting these CEOs to testify and illustrate that not enough is being done or has been done, the lawmakers are hoping that they can garner support for federal legislation that is intended to regulate these platforms and how they manage online safety and hopefully solve a lot of these issues we're seeing with teenagers and children. The second story is about this lawsuit

between DeSantis and Disney. So on Thursday, a federal judge dismissed Disney's lawsuit against Governor Ron DeSantis, which alleged that DeSantis and others retaliated against the company for speaking out against a Florida law. I'm going to give you a very brief recap of the facts here because I do have a whole episode where I did a whole 15-minute debrief about this lawsuit. That was my April 28th, 2023 episode. You can find that either by scrolling all the way down to that date or go on my website, jordanismylawyer.com, search Disney in my episodes, and it'll pop up for you. But anyway, Disney sued DeSantis back in April of 2023, accusing DeSantis of unlawful retaliation against Disney's speech

in violation of the First Amendment. And here is why. Remember when Florida enacted the parental rights and education law? That was the law that critics were calling the don't say gay law. Well, following that enactment, Disney spoke out against it. And Disney and DeSantis started going back and forth with one another. And actually something that's important for this discussion is that up until recently, Disney was essentially self-governing. When Disney was built, Florida created this district solely for Disney. It was called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. And this specially created district allowed Disney to govern itself and not necessarily be subject to Florida's state governance. So when Disney and DeSantis got into it, DeSantis, with the help of

some of the state lawmakers, dissolved the special district, which meant that Disney no longer had the self-governing powers that it once did. Instead, Florida's legislature created a new special district, and this was called the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. And it was controlled by DeSantis's appointees, which of course meant that Disney now, rather than being self-governing, would now be controlled by DeSantis' appointees in this new district. So as you would imagine, Disney sued. Specifically, Disney sued DeSantis, the Secretary of Florida's Department of Commerce, and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board members. And Disney's argument was that

these defendants were retaliating against it for speaking out against the legislation. And the retaliation is a violation of the First Amendment because Disney has the right to speak about its views and about its beliefs. The three named defendants in this case, so DeSantis, the department secretary, and the district board members, filed their own respective motions to dismiss. And this is typical procedure in any lawsuit. If you're the defendant, you know, in a lawsuit, you're going to try to get it dismissed. Ultimately, in a 17-page order, which was just released on Wednesday, the district court granted these motions to dismiss. When it came to DeSantis and the department secretary, the judge ruled that

Disney lacked standing to sue them. And when it came to the district board members, the judge said that Disney had failed to state a claim. So these are two different bases for dismissing a lawsuit. And we've talked about standing before. Standing is the legal ability to sue someone. In order to have standing, you have to have an injury that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant and can be fixed through a favorable decision. Failure to state a claim is different, but it's exactly what it sounds like. It means there's no basis for this lawsuit. The plaintiff failed to state an adequate claim. So without getting too into the weeds here, what the judge said in regard to DeSantis and the department secretary is that Disney wasn't able

to prove the traceability element of standing. So Disney wasn't able to show that the injury they were suffering was traceable to the department secretary or DeSantis. What Disney was saying is that it's traceable to DeSantis because DeSantis has the power to appoint the district board members and DeSantis has control over the board. But the judge ultimately said no, did not agree, and dismissed it for lack of standing when it came to DeSantis and the secretary or the department secretary. Then when it came to the third defendant, the district's board members, the failure to state a claim ruling was based on prior precedent that says that when a statute is constitutional

on its face, a plaintiff cannot bring a free speech challenge by claiming the lawmakers that passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose. In other words, if the law is constitutional, there's nothing wrong with the law. A person can't go after the lawmakers that enacted the law and say, well, you know what, even though the law is fine, constitutionally it's fine, the lawmakers acted with an unconstitutional purpose in enacting it. So according to the judge, Disney did have standing to sue the board members, but just didn't state a valid claim. So for all of those reasons, the lawsuit was dismissed against all three defendants.

And you know what? I'm almost positive that this conversation is not over. Disney will almost certainly appeal this, and we will have to see what the appellate court does with it. The third story I have for you is that President Biden issued an executive order on Thursday that imposes sanctions on anyone involved in settler violence in the West Bank. A senior administration official said that the order targets those settlers who, quote, directly perpetrated violence and those who have engaged in repeated acts of intimidation, property destruction, leading to the forced displacement of Palestinian communities, end quote. White House National Secretary Advisor Jake Sullivan said the order

establishes a system for imposing financial sanctions and visa restrictions against individuals who attack or intimidate Palestinians or seize their property. He said, quote, today's actions seek to promote peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike, end quote. So the initial set of designations named for Israeli men as the first of whom will be sanctioned under this order. And those who are sanctioned will not only see all of their property interests blocked here in the United States, but also they will not be allowed to enter the United States and anyone in the United States cannot

make any sort of contribution to these people, whether financially or not. So those are basically what these sanctions entail. So if you're on that list, no property in the United States, no entry, and you cannot receive any sort of benefits from anyone in the United States. The fourth story, Universal Music Group has removed their artist music from TikTok after the two failed to agree on terms for a new agreement. Both parties, those being Universal Music Group and TikTok, are blaming each other for the failed talks. TikTok is calling UMG greedy. UMG is calling TikTok a bully. So UMG,

of course, owns the rights to songs by artists like Taylor Swift, Olivia Rodrigo, Bad Bunny, The Weeknd, Justin Bieber, Elton John, and so many more. And on TikTok, you know, TikTok is a music platform. At least that's what it really started out as. So a lot of creators on that app will use these songs as their background music in their videos. But now that the music has been removed, a lot of those songs are gone. And it's sort of going to change the TikTok landscape a little bit. And at the same time, these artists with Universal could see a significant drop as far as discoverability goes. So perhaps they come to an agreement at some point, but not as of now. UMG wrote an open letter to the artists and songwriter community on January 30th titled,

Why We Must Call a Time Out on TikTok. And the letter reads in part, quote, In our contract renewal discussions, we have been pressing them on three critical issues, appropriate compensation for our artists and songwriters, protecting human artists from the harmful effects of AI and online safety for TikTok's users. With respect to the issue of artist and songwriter compensation, TikTok proposed paying our artists and songwriters at a rate that is a fraction of the rate that similarly situated major social platforms pay. Today, as an indication of how little TikTok compensates artists and songwriters, TikTok accounts for only about 1% of our total revenue. Ultimately, TikTok is trying to build a music-based business

without paying fair value for the music, end quote. This letter continues discussing AI, and you know that TikTok has made very little effort to combat AI's harmful effects, and UMG says that when they proposed that TikTok take similar steps to combat the harmful effects of AI, TikTok responded first with indifference and then with intimidation. UMG acknowledged that a failure to renegotiate will cause artists and fans to suffer negative consequences, but that it has an overriding responsibility to its artists to fight a new agreement that appropriately compensates them and respects human creativity. TikTok then responded to UMG's statement, writing, quote, it is sad and disappointing that Universal Music Group

has put their own greed above the interests of their artists and songwriters. Despite Universal's false narrative and rhetoric, the fact is they have chosen to walk away from the powerful support of a platform with well over a billion users that serves as a free promotional and discovery vehicle for their talent. TikTok has been able to reach artist-first agreements with every other label and publisher. Clearly, Universal's self-serving actions are not in the best interest of artists, songwriters, and fans. So for now, TikTok users obviously won't be able to find songs by UMG artists on the app because they've been removed. But again, if the two do eventually reach an agreement at some point down the road, then I would imagine all of those songs would

come back. The fifth story, three families of American victims of Hamas have filed suit against the governments of Iran and Syria, as well as the crypto exchange Binance and its former CEO. The lawsuit accuses them of providing financing and other material support to Hamas activities. This lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York by the family of two related women who were kidnapped by Hamas on October 7th, the family and estate of a member of the IDF who died fighting on October 8th, and the nephew of a doctor who was killed at a kibbutz in southern Israel on October 7th. Specifically, this lawsuit accuses Syria and Iran of arming and financing Hamas and accuses Binance and its former CEO of allowing Hamas to use Binance for its financial

transactions. And this is really nothing new. This isn't the first time that, well, the lawsuit is new, but Binance being involved in Hamas-related legal troubles here in the United States is not new. In fact, just a couple of months ago, the United States accused Binance of violating sanctions by not only allowing more than a million transactions to be conducted by people living in Iran, but also allowing the military wing of Hamas to use Bitcoin for its transactions. Binance ended up settling that legal battle with the treasury department for $4.3 billion with a B and the CEO also stepped down from his position as part of that settlement. But this lawsuit, the one filed by the families alleges that by allowing Hamas to carry out its transactions on this platform, Binance essentially helped finance the October 7th attack. Not only helped finance the October 7th attack. Not only helped finance the weaponry and the equipment that was used, but also helped finance the recruitment

of the individuals that helped carry out the attack. So from a legal perspective, Binance is being accused of aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, as well as providing material support to a terrorist organization. As far as the countries, the lawsuit accuses Iran of being the principal backer of Hamas terrorism due to their increased funding and the supply of weapons in recent years, while Syria is being accused as being one of the cradles of Hamas terrorism by contributing to Hamas's arsenal in the lead up to October 7th. Consequently, because of that, the families are seeking damages from both Iran and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism. And now for some state side news here in the United States. A federal judge

just ruled this week that California cannot require background checks to buy firearm ammunition. So here's the background. In 2016, California voters approved this ballot measure called Prop 63. And this measure did a number of things like it banned large capacity magazines, but it also had this background check provision, which was supposed to create a system where gun owners would apply for an ammunition purchase permit. It cost about $50. It would be valid for the next four years. And for that, you did this background check, right? But then California lawmakers amended that measure to require this automated background check each time someone bought ammunition. So instead of just a one-time check when you apply for that ammunition permit, it was now a background check for each time you bought ammunition. So the judge's ruling found

this sort of measure to be unconstitutional and that these types of background checks have, quote, no historical pedigree. The ruling says, quote, a sweeping background check requirement imposed every time a citizen needs to buy ammunition is an outlier that our ancestors would have never accepted for a citizen, end quote. The judge also noted that the state's automated background check system, which he said rejects roughly or rejected roughly 11% of applicants in the first half of 2023, is not great. He said that that rate was too high. So remember, the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Bruin set this new precedent that firearm restrictions must be consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. So that's why all of these recent

rulings coming out are putting so much focus on historical tradition. Now, in this case, specifically, the state of California did immediately appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and asked the district court to put his ruling on hold while the appeal is playing out, but the judge declined to do so. So what that means is that the background check requirement for each ammunition purchase is no longer in effect unless the Ninth Circuit comes in and puts the district court ruling on hold until they make a decision of their own, which is very possible when you take into account the history of this case, because this law had actually previously been struck down by the same

judge in 2020. But what happened is it went up on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and while it was on appeal, before the appellate court could even hear the case, the Supreme Court issued their Bruin decision. So the Ninth Circuit actually sent it back down to the district court for the district court to issue a new ruling consistent with the Bruin decision. And that's what was just released this week. So now the case will go back to the Ninth Circuit on appeal, and because the Ninth Circuit previously reinstated the law while it was up on appeal, I don't see why they wouldn't do that same thing again. Story number seven is also out of

California. California is set to become the first state to introduce reparations bills to its legislature. Other states like Colorado, New York, and Massachusetts have also taken steps towards reparations, but they haven't necessarily gotten as far as this. So the Legislative Black Caucus said on Wednesday that it plans to introduce 14 separate bills as part of one big package, which will touch on education, civil rights and criminal justice, food justice, and reviving an effort to restrict solitary confinement. So cash compensation for descendants of slaves, which has been a pretty polarizing topic in recent years, is not included in any of the measures, though one of the bills does have a provision for property return. The bill would, quote, restore property taken during race-based uses of eminent domain to its original owners or provide another

effective remedy where appropriate, such as restitution or compensation, end quote. Other proposals that are included in this package include protections for natural and protective hairstyles in all competitive sports and a former apology by the governor and the legislature for the state's role in human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants. California lawmakers are said to be considering this package this spring. And now for some news out of Florida. A leaked Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle memo out of Florida says that county tax collectors are not to issue replacement IDs of driver's license for residents seeking to change their gender on their license or ID card.

The policy that was previously in place had been in place since about 2011, and it allowed people to change their gender on their license if they brought a certified letter from a doctor. But last year, Florida enacted a new law surrounding driver's license requirements, not specifically about gender, just about the application for a license generally. But the thing is, is the law didn't mention anything about a doctor's note being sufficient for the gender change. Consequently, the department sent out this memo that said that the previous policy is no longer, quote, supported by statutory authority, end quote. The memo also states that gender markers on newly issued Florida driver's license

should reflect an individual's sex assigned at birth and that the department is only permitted to issue a replacement when a license is either lost or stolen or when there is a change in the licensee's name, address, or restrictions, but not for gender changes. The memo also said, quote, Permitting an individual to alter his or her license to reflect an internal sense of gender role or identity, which is neither immutable nor objectively verifiable, undermines the purpose of an identification record and can frustrate the state's ability to enforce its laws. Furthermore, misrepresenting one's gender, understood as sex on a driver's

license, constitutes fraud and subjects an offender to criminal and civil penalties, including cancellation, suspension, or revocation of his or her license, end quote. And the laws that are cited to there are various state statutes that either make it illegal to knowingly make a false statement or conceal a material fact when you actually apply for a license, as well as the ability of a department to cancel or suspend your license if they determine that you either failed to give correct information when you applied or you committed any sort of fraud when you applied. That takes us into one-liners. The first few one-liners are out of the House. The House passed a bill on Wednesday in a 422-2

vote that deems any members of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or any other individuals who participated in or facilitated the October 7th attack on Israel ineligible to enter the United States, even if seeking asylum. The House also passed a $78 billion bipartisan tax package that temporarily expands the child tax credit and restores a number of tax benefits to businesses. That vote was 357 to 70. And the third thing out of the House is that they also passed a bill and a 274 to 150 vote, making any undocumented immigrant driving under the influence inadmissible for permanent admission to the country and subject to deportation. Number four, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday that 10 Republican state senators who staged a record-long walkout last year to stall legislative sessions cannot run for re-election.

Number five, the House Homeland Security Committee voted 18-15 to advance the articles of impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas, which means the articles could go to the House floor for a vote next week. And finally, number six, Alec Baldwin pled not guilty to his manslaughter charge in New Mexico on Wednesday. And now it's time for my favorite segment of the week, not everything is bad. Usually when we hear a story about a bride on her wedding day, it's one of those bridezilla stories, right? But this one is actually the opposite. A Northern California bride who has decided to remain anonymous, at least for the time being, made the decision to call off her wedding just two weeks before the big day. Unfortunately for her, the cancellation happened after the refund period had passed, which means she was not getting her money back. But rather than just sulk in her sorrow, she decided to turn her misfortune into good for others

and donated the entire reception, which costs about $15,000, to a San Jose nonprofit called Parents Helping Parents. PHP helps support families that have children living with disabilities and had once helped the bride's family. So when she thought of the donation idea, PHP was an easy choice. PHP sprang into action. They sent out last minute invitations to an event

that they called Ball for All and had 100 seats reserved 48 hours before the event. The event was open to children with special needs along with either a member of their family or a member of their care team. And they got to dance the night away, eat good food, and it was just pure fun for everyone involved. Maria Dane, the executive director of PHP, said, quote, it was hectic, but it was all worth it. Watching the young adults with special needs dance to DJ Brian in that beautiful ballroom was a wonderful way to celebrate the spirit of the holiday season. The night consisted of dancing, dinner, dessert, drinks, and a photo booth, all paid by the bride, of course. That is what I

have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a fantastic weekend, and I will talk to you on Tuesday. Bye.