- Today we're gonna be talking about
what the hell's going on
with these Taylor Swift/Billie Eilish situations,
we've got a massive update
regarding that New York City hospital Citi Bike situation,
there's a massive manhunt underway for a murderer.
We're talking about all that and so much more
on today's brand new "Philip DeFranco Show,"
so buckle up, hit that like button,
and let's just jump into it.
Starting with a convicted murderer
is on the run right now in South Carolina,
but people are actually more divided on this
than you might expect.
And that's primarily because a judge released him.
Let me explain.
Right, so this is Jeroid Price.
He was convicted of murder
for killing 22-year-old Carl Smalls, Jr.
at a nightclub in Columbia back in 2002
and after serving 19 years of his sentence,
a judge, the day before he was set to retire,
signed and sealed an order for Price's release in March,
there, citing repeated instances
of Price assisting the corrections officers.
Once, he reportedly intervened
when inmates were beating on an officer
and preparing to stab him.
Another time, he reportedly tackled an inmate
that hit an officer with a broom.
And most importantly, the order cited Price
tipping off officials about the escape of a fellow inmate.
So that happens and the family of Carl Smalls
ends up receiving a phone call one morning in March
saying the man who killed their son
would be released that day,
with the family completely blindsided by this
and Smalls' father saying,
"They just turned everything all over again."
Right, so then they tell David Pascoe,
the attorney who prosecuted Price for the 2002 murder
and who is now notably a chief prosector in Columbia,
with him in turn contacting the state's attorney general
and several reporters,
and that starting the process that led to Price's case
reaching the state Supreme Court.
Now, notably, many states, including South Carolina,
have laws that allow for the early release of inmates
that offer information or assistance to law enforcement
and corrections officers,
but there were concerning holes in Price's cases,
with one Supreme Court justice saying,
"We have a sealed order with no hearing to seal it.
It was never filed.
Who knew it? Who could file an appeal?
It's a phantom order."
And Pascoe argued against the judge's reasons
for releasing Price,
saying that prison records actually show Price
was a disruptive inmate who was repeatedly sanctioned,
with Pascoe also arguing that the claims
of Price defending corrections offers were shaky at best
and going on to say
that the shady way Price's release was handled
only caused the Smalls family pain,
saying, "This was all a sham.
Worse than that, it was a secret."
So what we end up seeing
is the Supreme Court overrule Price's release
a month after he walked out in March
and demanded that he return to prison on April 26th
to serve the rest of his sentence.
But surprise, surprise, Price failed to surrender
and it kicks off this whole manhunt
with his face now getting slapped on television,
billboards, newspapers, the works,
and last week, authorities raising the reward
for information leading to his arrest
from $5,000 to $30,000.
But that also isn't the end
because there's an interesting political angle
to this story as well.
Because Price's longtime defense attorney
is Todd Rutherford, the Democratic leader
in the state's House of Representatives,
with him also serving on a legislative committee
that helps determine who becomes a state judge.
Which is actually a fairly unique thing to South Carolina.
The only other state
that allows a legislature to select judges is Virginia.
Right, and so with Rutherford
being one of the several practicing attorneys
on the committee, even before this, it was an arrangement
that many critics say causes a conflict of interest.
And so now many of those critics
have latched onto Price's shady release deal
in their push to overhaul the judicial selection system.
And as far as Rutherford,
we've seen him publicly call for Price to turn himself in,
but also saying in an interview
that the attention on this case
has made it dangerous for Price to do so,
saying, "We have labeled him a snitch
for the entire world to see."
Something that might not go over well
with the guys that he's locked up with.
And in addition to all this,
Price's case has caused the state
to reexamine other early release deals,
with Governor Henry McMaster calling on correction officials
to look for similar cases
with the intent being to find
just how unusual this situation is.
And reportedly, the Department of Corrections
found 26 other cases since the beginning of 2022
where inmates were released early
for helping law enforcement in some capacity.
And in one of those cases, you had a convicted murderer
who had served 27 years of a life sentence,
leading to a spokesperson for the governor saying,
"This report highlights the need
for tougher criminal penalties
and confirms the General Assembly needs to act
to close the revolving door on violent offenders
and crack down on career criminals and illegal guns."
But for now, as of recording, Price has yet to be caught.
We're gonna keep an eye on this story
to keep you in the loop.
But with this wild, wild story, I gotta ask:
What are your thoughts on this?
And then, it's not my fault that I hurt you.
With those today not being the words
of a toxic ex gaslighting you, rather Dennis Guider, Jr.
Because Guider found himself in some trouble
due to this thing that happened back in 2021.
And we're talking about it today
because the body cam footage from this incident
has now been released.
And so what we see go down
is Officer Patrick McCarty pulling over Guider
in Western Iowa for a warrant in Illinois,
approaches the car,
he asked Guider to step out of the passenger seat.
But instead, we see Guider shove the woman
who is driving out of the car
and he then tries to drive off,
with Officer McCarty then jumping onto the hood of the car
with his gun drawn, ordering Guider to stop the car.
But instead, he just speeds up
with McCarty then holstering his gun,
holding onto the car for dear life,
until eventually Guider hits a ditch,
McCarty's flung off, and he breaks his back.
And so with that, during his trial last week,
Guider's lawyer had the audacity
to argue, "It's not me, it's you,"
saying that McCarty acted against his training
when he crawled onto the car and, quote,
"Compounded the situation."
To which McCarty acknowledged
he was not specifically trained to climb onto a car,
but saying, "Each situation is different.
It certainly didn't play out the way I intended."
And so what we ended up seeing was the judge ruling,
yes, Guider will serve up to five years in prison in Iowa
separate from his sentence in Illinois,
but then also going on to say
that McCarty probably should have moved out of the way
when Guider started moving the car.
And Guider's police chief also adding
that the situation will be used
as a training point moving forward.
And so with this we've seen different reactions
from people online,
some saying, "Yeah, the cop should've known better,"
but others saying, "Guider should count himself lucky,"
arguing once he started to floor that car,
McCarty should've just shot him.
So that's why I gotta ask you:
What are your thoughts here? Which side do you land on?
And then, we gotta talk about a huge update
regarding a story we covered earlier this week,
that being the viral video
that happened outside of a New York City hospital.
Right, that where you had the white staff worker
who Ben Crump accused of weaponizing her tears
and calling her actions, "Dangerous."
Well, according to the New York Post this morning,
the lawyer for the Manhattan hospital worker
who was accused of taking the Citi Bike
from a young Black man
who claimed that he had paid for the bike,
provided receipts he says shows
she was the one who purchased the ride
at the center of the viral incident.
And the lawyer didn't just say that she rented it first,
he also provided two Citi Bike receipts from May 12th
which were timestamped just minutes apart,
with The Post saying they reviewed it
and it shows that the bike was taken out
before it was relocked one minute later,
which the lawyer said is the bike seen in the video,
and saying, "The second receipt shows
another bike being taken out a minute later
from the same docking station
and was the bike Marino said his client used to get home
after being, 'heckled and pressured to find a new bike'
by the group."
With the lawyer saying that what had actually happened
was that after this health care worker
wrapped up her 12-hour shift, she got on an available bike,
"Which no individuals were on or touching,"
paid for it through the Citi Bike app on her phone.
She then backed it up from the docking station
when a group of five people approached her
and claimed the bike was theirs.
With the lawyer also saying,
"One or more individuals in that group
physically pushed her bike with her on it
back into the docking station, causing it to re-lock."
All right, so this is an absolutely massive update
to that story,
not only because that video
has now been video over tens of millions of times,
but also because of this incident had been put on leave.
But ultimately, that's where we are right now
and we'll wait to see what else comes from this.
But I gotta ask, with this update
and now hearing from her side through her lawyer,
what are your thoughts?
And then, these Billie Eilish/Taylor Swift situations
right now have a lot of people divided,
though, for a number of reasons.
With the first big question being, are fans crossing a line
with how invested they are in celebrity relationships?
Yes or no, and then, if no, second situation.
Are the specific ways that people
or the group are reacting okay?
Right, and so with this,
the biggest spotlight right now is on Taylor Swift
and no way is it a secret that over a decade her fans
and the public have been incredibly interested
in her love life,
though that also not out of nowhere,
a lot of her work revolving around her relationships,
though we've seen her newest rumored boyfriend
causing an even bigger stir than usual,
right, because there were reports
that she's dating Matt Healy of The 1975,
with him reportedly having a long history of making,
it's kind of a range of things,
kind of either problematic remarks
or just outright racist ones.
And maybe you've seen headlines popping up,
like a situation where he did a Nazi salute onstage
while singing the lyric, "Thank you Kanye, very cool."
There was also a podcast that's since been deleted
where it's said that he made racist comments
about Ice Spice,
with there also being another segment of the podcast
that's still up, but I can't play it
'cause then I'm just gonna get demonetized,
in which Healy discusses the porn that he watches,
which includes a site that focuses
on the degradation of women of color.
Right, and with this, just keep in mind
these are kind of like the highlight issues for people.
But also, on the other side,
for a long time his fans have seen this kind of behavior
as just satire, right,
he doesn't mean this stuff,
he's just saying it to cause a fuss.
But now because of this proximity to,
and the spotlight on Taylor Swift,
we were seeing a new round of scrutiny,
especially from Taylor Swift fans
who are absolutely appalled
that she'd date someone who has said stuff like this,
with then even starting the hashtag #SpeakUpNow,
which is a reference to her album "Speak Now,"
and sharing a lengthy open letter addressed to her online,
saying, "Your voice holds tremendous power
and right now your silence is palpable.
Racism, anti-Semitism, and any form of discrimination
have no place in our society.
Staying silent about actions that perpetuate hatred
and contribute to systemic oppression
undermines the progress that was made
towards equality and understanding.
We urge you to reflect on the impact of your own
and your associates' behavior."
And we've seen tons of fans sharing this letter,
as well as messages about why they feel like Taylor
needs to speak out against Matty's behavior,
some even saying they canceled recent album orders.
But at the same time,
you have some saying this is a parasocial relationship
that's now gone too far,
with people writing things like, "She's a grown woman,
she can make her own decisions
without thinking about pleasing the fandom every time,"
and, "It's perfectly fine to dislike Matty Healy
and to be offended but this is just crossing a line."
And with this line of thinking,
of course Taylor Swift is not alone,
right, there have been reports coming out
that Billie Eilish just broke up
with her boyfriend, Jesse Rutherford,
and as places like The Daily Beast noted,
this was welcome news for her fans
as many had taken issue with the fact
that he's 11 years older than her,
especially amid rumors
that he first met her when she was a teenager.
Which is why if you hop on Twitter,
there are tons of fans celebrating the news.
And so that's why with all this,
I wanna bring us back to kinda those two main questions:
Do you think what we're seeing here
are fans crossing a line
with how invested they are in celebrity relationships,
yes or no?
And if no, what are your thoughts
on these specific situations
and some of these specific reactions?
For example, like, one of the arguments has been
the Swift/Healy situation, that's fair game
because she is such a public figure
who has talked about her personal life
so much in her content
and seemingly this alleged relationship
would contradict the things that people see in Taylor Swift.
It's all incredibly messy
and it's why I wanna know your thoughts.
And then, you know, putting out a daily news show
definitely qualifies as a fast-paced working environment
and thanks to the sponsor of today's show, Grammarly,
or more specifically, GrammarlyGO,
this software is appreciated by my whole team each day.
Because GrammarlyGO provides
personalized generative AI communication assistance
that accelerates your productivity and unlocks creativity,
so it's perfect for all paces of productivity.
You know, sometimes we can get creatively blocked
and you just need a nudge
to get your creative juices flowing
and GrammarlyGO gives amazing aid in the process,
be it working on scripts
or coming up with creative thumbnails day after day
with GrammarlyGO.
I mean, even with marketing merch
we can just type in "Give me 10 possible ideas
for describing a hoodie,"
and bam, clever ideas for describing that hoodie.
And my favorite part
is that you can customize your preferred style
of communication by setting set voice
to determine how you wanna sound.
Or, I mean, rewrite it.
Writing scripts and capturing the right mood,
it can be a challenge,
but with GrammarlyGO you can highlight the blob of text
and choose from your options,
make it sound more exciting or more professional.
I'm telling you, you will be amazed
with what you can do with GrammarlyGO.
You gotta check it out.
So go to Grammarly.com/PhilDeFranco05
and get 20% off Grammarly Premium.
And then, the internet almost changed forever today,
right, 'cause in front of the Supreme Court
you had two cases against Google and Twitter
and it was focused on whether they were liable
for content posted on their platforms,
and the Google case, in particular,
specifically revolving around Section 230,
which says that sites like YouTube and Twitter
are not liable for what their users post
and gives then wide authority
to how they wanna moderate their sites.
And the key thing there is that 230 is pretty much
the only way that those platforms are able to exist.
And as far as both of these cases,
they were similar in that they dealt with families
who were victims of ISIS.
In the Twitter case,
it was argued that the platform
knowingly let ISIS content just continue to exist on there,
with the argument being
that because they knew it was there they were liable.
Whereas in the Google case,
the family argued that because their algorithm
sometimes promotes ISIS content
that it's no longer just user-generated content
and it's not protected by Section 230.
But on the other side of these cases,
you had Google and Twitter,
alongside many amicus briefs filed by other large companies,
arguing that rules like this
would make it so either platforms overmoderated
or just get rid of any guardrails.
And that latter option would just make what is available
and shown on those platforms even more dangerous
than right now.
And so the biggest question with this
was what did the court think.
And while regarding whether algorithms
are specifically protected or not,
we don't know, as they side-stepped that question.
Right, in the Twitter case,
the Court looked at the bigger picture
with Justice Clarence Thomas,
taking some time away from his mega-yacht
and gifted vacations, to write in the unanimous decision,
"It might be that bad actors like ISIS
are able to use platforms like defendants' for illegal,
and sometimes terrible, ends.
But the same could be said of cell phones, email,
and or the internet generally."
And adding, "We conclude that plaintiffs' allegations
are insufficient to establish
that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS
in carrying out the relevant attack."
And then in the Google case,
they didn't even consider looking at it,
saying that they, quote, "Decline to address
the application of Section 230 to a complaint
that appears to state little, if any,
plausible claim for relief."
And so that's good news for us here on YouTube
'cause I think that would just be the end of the show,
whether I wanted it to or not.
You'd either be getting a hyper-curated feed
where my content's probably not gonna show up
or you're just gonna have, like, front pages and feeds
that's updated every second
with hundreds of thousands of videos.
But another key takeaway here
is that this doesn't mean that Section 230's just safe,
that it won't be on the chopping block
before the Court in the future.
Because you have many people from both parties
taking jabs at 230
and it really only feels like a matter of time
before something changes.
And then, Montana just banned TikTok.
They're the first state to do so,
but what's not being talked about as much
are all of the legal and logistical questions
this now poses.
Right, so you have Governor Greg Gianforte,
probably best known nation-wide for body slamming a reporter
and actually pleading guilty to assault
but then not serving any jail time,
signing this law yesterday
and saying that it would, "Protect Montanans' personal
and private data from the Chinese Community Party,"
with the ban set to go into effect January 1st, 2024.
But it's also expected to face legal challenges before then.
Because as far as how this is going to work,
TikTok users themselves won't be punished for violations,
but companies that offer it on their app stores,
like Google and Apple,
would receive fines of $10,000 a day for violations,
and reports saying that TikTok would also be subject
to those fines as well.
But right now it remains unclear
how these companies are actually gonna enforce this,
with a representative from TechNet previously saying
that these platforms don't have the ability
to geofence apps by state,
and so with that saying it would be impossible
to prevent the app from being downloaded.
And even though some analysts do believe
that app stores could be capable of enforcing this,
it would be very difficult for them
and there would be tons of loopholes.
And for his part, Governor Gianforte has stated
that this law is necessary over concerns
that the CCP is using TikTok to spy on Americans
and violate their privacy,
but also TikTok has continuously denied
that it gives any user data to the government,
with the company also releasing a statement saying
the Montana law infringes on the First Amendment rights
of the people of Montana and adding,
"We want to reassure Montanans
that they can continue using TikTok to express themselves,
earn a living, and find community
as we continue working to defend the rights
of our users inside and outside of Montana."
And we also saw the ACLU condemning the law
for similar reasons, saying that it,
"Tramples on our free speech rights
under the guise of national security
and lays the groundwork for excessive government control
over the internet."
Going on to argue, "Elected officials do not have the right
to selectively censor entire social media apps
based on their country of origin."
And so now it looks like this all moves on
to next step of a legal battle.
Right, lawsuits will be filed,
we're gonna have to wait to see how it plays out.
Right, and a key takeaway from this story
is this is not just Montana.
As some reports have noted,
this law could serve as a closely watched test case
over how far policymakers can go
in banning operations of a private company.
But also, that's not where
the best social media legal news ends today,
with platforms right now,
including TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat,
all facing lawsuits from various school districts
over their impact on student mental health and wellbeing,
with the latest coming
from Prince George's Country Public Schools in Maryland,
which has now decided to retain legal representation
so they can sue these companies.
And their lawyers saying in a memo
they want to achieve what they refer to
as, "meaningful recoveries" for districts
that have been left on the frontlines
to deal with this crisis that tech companies have created.
And adding, "This is about the impact of social media
on the students within the school system.
And more importantly, the impact of social media addiction
and the problems that the school system has to address."
And like I said,
Prince George isn't the only school district,
they are just the latest.
Right, there are tons of other districts
that have already filed lawsuits,
with the first complaint of this nature
being filed back in January by Seattle Public Schools,
saying that these social media platforms
have created a public nuisance
by getting kids addicted to their platforms
and specifically claiming in this suit,
the "Defendants have successfully exploited
the vulnerable brains of youth,
hooking tens of millions of students across the country
into positive feedback loops of excessive use
and abuse of Defendants' social media platforms."
Adding, "Worse, the content Defendants curate
and direct to youth is too often harmful and exploitive."
And further adding, because, you know,
lawyers aren't known for their brevity,
the misconduct of these apps
has led to increased rates of anxiety, depression,
thoughts of self-harm, and suicidal ideation.
And with that, saying in this county
they've, "Seen drastic increases in suicides,
attempted suicides, and mental-health related ER visits."
Saying this makes it clear
that there's a massive youth mental health crisis
and that, "All of this directly affects
Seattle Public Schools' ability
to fulfill its educational mission."
You also had the San Mateo County Office of Education
in California making similar claims
in a lawsuit back in March,
saying these social media companies,
"Have carefully cultivated this crisis,
which is a feature, not a bug,
of their social media products,"
and also referring to President Joe Biden's comments
in the 2023 State of the Union
where he said that the "Social media companies
are 'running on our children for profit.'"
And further arguing that these companies,
"Purposefully designed their platforms
to be addictive and to deliver harmful content to youth."
And, again, these are just a few examples.
We're seeing similar suits
coming from other parts of California,
as well as Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey.
Now, with this, for their part,
social media companies have responded to these suits
by saying they prioritize children's safety,
that they've installed safeguard features to protect them.
But also, with this, like, let's be honest with one another,
everyone who has ever used a social media platform knows
that there is no tool on Earth
that could actually successfully prevent these apps
from being toxic poison pills.
But that also doesn't mean that these cases
are gonna be a slam dunk for the school districts to win.
It's a whole hell of a lot more complicated than that.
Right, there are numerous reasons
that make it incredibly difficult
to hold social media companies legally accountable
for their negative affects,
with the most obvious one, we even talked about earlier,
being Section 230.
Right, it's supposed to shield tech companies
from liability over what people post on their platforms,
but a very key thing there
is that at least in the very major Seattle case,
educators argue that this isn't a Section 230 thing,
arguing that Section 230 doesn't protect tech companies
from the specific accusations the district is levying.
Saying this isn't about content posted by third-parties,
instead they're trying to frame this
as companies should be held liable
for their own affirmative conduct
on recommending and promoting harmful content to you.
As well, or at least,
for designing and marketing their apps in harmful ways,
creating harmful content of their own,
and distributing material they know
to be harmful and unlawful.
But even still there,
you have legal experts who are skeptical,
with, for example, a law professor at UCLA
telling Education Week that much of these allegations
are likely protected by the First Amendment.
And when discussing that specific case in Seattle,
adding, "They are saying it's a nuisance,
it's bad for society.
It's a very vague and potentially a very broad rule
that it's hard for anybody to try to figure out
how it will play out."
And an education professor at Kansas State University
also chiming in saying,
"There's no question there is a problem.
The issue is, how can social media companies
be assigned some kind of liability for this problem?
And with that, legal experts saying,
"You know, this can be an easy win
in the court of public opinion,
but as far as the court of law, probably difficult."
And while the proper results of these suits
or proper solutions for these problems can be debated,
the one thing most people can agree on
is that there is a problem.
Right, I mean, you had the CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey
finding that in 2021 42% of high school students
said they experienced persistent feelings
of sadness or hopelessness.
That's up significantly from just 28% in 2011.
And even more concerning,
22% seriously considered attempting suicide in 2011,
which is a 6% bump from a decade ago.
And also finding that most of the numbers across the board
were much higher for young female students,
and that including higher rates
of experiencing cyber bullying.
With that said, as far as what's gonna happen
with these lawsuits, well, we just don't know yet,
but you did have Seattle Public Schools saying,
"The goal is not to eliminate social media,
but to change how these companies operate
and force them to take responsibility,"
with them seeking, in addition to the compensatory damages,
that these companies make actionable changes
and to fund prevention education
regarding the harms of social media.
But for now, we're gonna have to wait
to see how this plays out and in the mean time,
I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below.
And that is actually where today's show ends.
Thank you, as always,
for being a part of my daily dives in the news,
but as always, my name's Philip DeFranco,
you've just been filled in,
I love yo' faces, and I'll see you next time.