- 'Sup you beautiful bastards,
welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show.
A quick thing before we jump into it,
yesterday, it turns out I did a push for craig.ai/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 handled it relatively quick.
It's my fault, they thought I was going to
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.
Let's just jump into it. The first thing
that we're going to talk about today,
is this Britney Spears situation,
because the news that we're getting right now,
maybe 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 a conservatorship to be abusive,
she wants her father out,
she wants the whole thing to be done.
As far as what he would do, yet,
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 Mathew Rosengart
demanded that he stepped 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 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's 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.
So that report continuing that Jamie doesn't actually want
the conservatorship to end,
especially not without an evaluation.
A 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, alright.
We're going to 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?
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, and what's going to easily be one of the most
divisive topics in today's show, which is crazy,
'cause 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 it, right?
The whole kitchen sink.
They're 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 paste.
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 helps.
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 paste,
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. Do you?
- They're making (bleep) up.
They keep saying I'm taking horse dewormer.
I literally got it from a doctor. It's an American company.
- [Male Co-Host] Mmhm.
- Well 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 contribution
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,
- [Male Co-Host] Yeah.
- is that I got better.
- [Male Co-Host] Yeah, you got better quickly.
- They're trying to make it seem as if, like,
I'm doing some wacky (bleep) that's completely ineffective.
- [Male Co-Host] Right.
- 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 moron,
you shouldn't listen to me.
As far as pushing back against people saying
you're doing some wacky shit
that's just completely ineffective --
While yes, there are people that are doing that.
I think the actual thing is way more complicated, right?
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 they even gave Trump.
But ultimately, that's where I'm gonna end this 'cause one,
I know I'm going to 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 hydroxy chloroquine, but now we have vaccines.
Remember hydroxy chloroquine?
And I'm not saying we're going to 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.
Whereas University of Sydney Law Professor
David Rolph 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.
Well, 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 going to have to
try to prove that, but for now,
it seems like outlets are going to 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 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 want to take a second to thank
the fantastic sponsor of today's show, NordVPN.com/Phil
Now, if you're a long time viewer, you know that
I spent the last few years telling about Nord VPN
and the many reasons why you should be using it.
With Nord VPN, all your internet data is protected
behind a wall of next generation encryption,
and Nord VPN servers are ultra fast.
So, there's no sacrificing speed for security,
with Nord, you get both.
Right? And as you beautiful bachelors know
from those bathrooms shows,
my family and I just recently took a vacation.
And, I mean, that's a fantastic example
of where I used 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 Nord VPN a part of your online security plan,
head on over to NordVPN.com/Phil right now,
to get a huge discount on a two year plan.
Plus you 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/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.
- [Reporter] 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.
And 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 crime.
Right, and in general, we saw people piling on,
pointing out how ignorant his remarks are.
'Cause I mean, and 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.
- You know, I think that's one of the key things with this,
while 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.
And 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.
The Mexico supreme court unanimously voting 10 to zero
to strike down a series of laws from Coahuila state
that sought to effectively criminalize
having an abortion with three years in prison.
This is Norma Pina 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, it means that abortions before 12 weeks
cannot be criminalized. So, of note, this may actually be a
shallow victory, because before the ruling only three
Mexican states and Mexico City explicitly allowed abortion.
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.
Right, 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 U.S. border,
giving Texans another place to seek abortions.
And hey, while yes, someone could go to other U.S. states,
medical tourism in 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.