- 'Sup, you beautiful bastards.
Welcome back to The Philip De Franco Show.
Hit that like button
to help spread some common sense news coverage,
and let's just jump into it.
Y'all, obviously, the first thing
that we're gonna talk about today
is the Johnny Depp Amber Heard
defamation trial is officially over.
The verdict came in today.
Jury selection started April 11th,
closing arguments, May 27th,
and today the jury decided.
- [Juror] Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven
all the elements of defamation?
Answer, yes.
- With the jury finding that to be the case
with all three of Depp's claims against Heard
and as far as Amber Heard,
she lost two of her claims and won one.
And so with all of that, the jury awarded Depp $10 million
in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.
But per a Virginia statute,
Depp's punitive damages are capped at $350,000.
And then, as far as Heard,
she was awarded a total of $2 million.
And as you'd expect, there's been a massive reaction online.
Among those happy with the verdict, you had people saying,
"This is so, so heartwarming.
We love you Johnny, finally your name is cleared."
"Male victims of domestic violence gained a voice today.
May this be a watershed moment
in our understanding of abuse and its consequences.
Abuse has no gender, does not care how rich or poor you are.
No matter who you are, your story matters."
And, "Well, Amber you told him to tell the world.
He did, we heard him, so did the jury."
And among those against the verdict, you had people saying,
"Literally nothing about this trial has been surprising,
from the treatment of the accuser to the eventual verdict.
She certainly did face our culture's wrath."
"Amber Heard had more evidence than 99.999%
of domestic abuse survivors have
to support her claims of abuse,
and a jury still found her guilty of defamation.
Meanwhile, the person she accused could not be bothered
to even show up to court.
We hate women so much in this country."
And, "Like in the trial at large,
the format of this verdict reading
will shape how people will remember it.
Johnny Depp's sweeping victory being read first
will certainly completely overshadow the fact
that Amber Heard also made a successful claim
of defamation against Depp."
We've also gotten responses from both parties here,
with Heard putting out a statement saying,
she is disappointed her evidence was not enough,
but adding, "I'm even more disappointed
with what this verdict means for other women.
It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time
when a woman who spoke up and spoke out
could be publicly shamed and humiliated."
But then, Depp, on the other hand saying,
"The goal of bringing this case
was to reveal the truth, regardless of the outcome.
Speaking the truth was something that I owed to my children
and to all those who have remained steadfast
in their support of me.
I feel at peace knowing I have finally accomplished that."
But now with all of that said, right,
the verdict coming in, reactions rolling through,
what are your thoughts?
Do you agree or you disagree with the verdict?
Why? Why not?
Any and all thoughts you have,
I'd love to hear from you in those comments down below
and then, you know with the rise of remote work,
there are people that love it.
There are people that hate it
and among that latter group, you have Elon Musk.
Because emails have now leaked
that appear to show Elon Musk threatening
to fire Tesla executives unless they show up
to the main office in person full time.
With him saying,
"Anyone who wishes to do remote work
must be in the office for a minimum,
and I mean minimum of 40 hours per week or depart Tesla.
This is less than we ask of factory workers."
And adding, "If there are particularly
exceptional contributors for whom this is impossible,
I will review and approve those exceptions directly."
While this was a leaked email,
Musk is not private about this opinion.
When someone asked him on Twitter,
"Any additional comment to people who think
coming into work is an antiquated concept?"
He replied, "They should pretend to work somewhere else."
This isn't exactly a new opinion for Musk.
He tweeted last month,
"All the Covid stay-at-home stuff
has tricked people into thinking
that you don't actually need to work hard.
Rude awakening inbound!"
Though, there would be a fair share of people
who would disagree with that.
For example, you had three economists telling Insider
that, "Remote work during the pandemic
did not damage worker productivity.
With evidence, even suggesting
that productivity has in fact increased
as people went remote.
With the belief, "Being it's because remote workers
spend less time commuting and more time sleeping
and being with their families,
which makes them happier and more productive."
Though, the one caveat there is
that people with children
at home might see a dip in productivity.
But overall, seems very positive
which is why other big tech companies
like Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook
still allow at least some remote work
depending on the employee's position and location.
You've also had Musk, in the past, ripping into workers
trying not to come into the office in person last month,
by comparing them to Chinese workers whom he said,
"Don't even leave the factory
and keep going until three in the morning."
Also, just so everyone understands,
he is not being hyperbolic there.
By the same day that he said that,
Fortune published this article detailing
how Tesla workers in Shanghai work
12-hour shifts six days a week,
even sleeping on the factory floor.
And in the leaked emails,
it appears that Musk tries to get ahead of people saying,
other companies don't do this.
With Musk writing,
"There are of course companies that don't require this,
but when was the last time
they shipped a great new product?"
And personally, I agree with Elon Musk.
It's why I keep my writers, researchers,
and editors locked in cages right next to the studio.
And before all you woke leftists get all up in arms,
I water and feed them on a semi-regular basis.
Now, with this story, I would of course
love to know your thoughts on work from home.
Have you done it? Do you love it?
Are you glad about the switch?
Has there not been a switch?
Insert questions here.
I personally love it, but I also understand that
not everyone's job's like mine,
almost pretty much everyone
at my company can be work from home
and also, of the notion of people faking working from home.
I know that is a thing for some people,
but I think a lot of jobs, there's an open secret
of so much of the day is just empty hours.
They have an eight hour day,
maybe the amount of work that they actually have to do
is like three to five hours.
It just that's just the way some jobs are
and personally, I'm of the mindset
of as long as you accomplish a thing
that we were trying to accomplish,
(bell ringing)
perfect.
And well, some of you let me know your thoughts there,
I do have to say,
this isn't even my favorite Elon Musk story.
My favorite Elon Musk story this week
is that he randomly got into a fight
with a video game satire website.
And I mean, let's just walk through it.
Elon Musk puts out a tweet that he has now deleted.
The company Hard Drive responds,
"Hey, I'll give you a horse
if you stop cropping our name off our articles."
To which, Elon Musk replies,
"Well, if you make something that looks like a meme
and someone not me, crops off your name, so it goes.
Also, this is only a six out of 10 meme,
so maybe step down from that high horse.
The selfless art of anonymous meme creators
is something to be admired."
To which Hard Drive responds,
"Okay, well let me know what you think about this one,"
linking him to an article titled,
"Elon Musk Admits He Wants to Travel to Mars
Because No One Hates Him There Yet."
Elon responds, "Less funny than SNL on a bad day.
This could make a drunk person sober. Try harder!"
To which Hard Drive responds,
"Well, you're the expert on SNL's bad days."
Elon going on to write,
"The reason you're not that funny is because you're woke.
Humor relies on an intuitive and often awkward truth
being recognized by the audience,
but wokism is a lie, which is why nobody laughs."
Also, it should be noted regarding the nobody laughs part,
the entire time Elon Musk is being ratioed by Hard Drive.
With them then posting the article,
"Elon Musk Offers to Buy Rake He Stepped On."
Then finally, the article,
"Hard Drive Apologizes to Elon Musk
for Dunking on Him Too Hard,"
With them going on to detail the various controversies
Musk has been involved in over the last few years,
and going on to write, "We hope that Mr Musk
will accept our sincerest apologies.
We should have known that it was unwise to go toe-to-toe
with a billionaire who's famous for his ability
to deliver epic clap-backs to his critics,
like when Mr. Musk called a diver who rescued children
from a flooded cave a "pedophile,"
and adding, "From now on, we vow to put aside petty quarrels
and use our platform to highlight issues that really matter,
like the reportedly 'nightmarish conditions'
in Tesla factories, which have been likened
to modern day sweatshops."
Oh, Jesus.
Anyway, congratulations to Hard Drive
for their future acquisition by Elon Musk.
But from that, I wanna take a second
to thank the fantastic sponsor
of today's show, "Squarespace."
I've been partnering with Squarespace
for years now, and I have to say,
if you're getting your business off the ground,
or creating a place to share your homemade goods,
new favorite hobby, current obsession,
or even a personal blog to get all those thoughts
outta your head no matter what you're doing,
Squarespace is there to help.
It's also easy, there's nothing to install,
patch, or upgrade ever
and creating a beautiful website
with Squarespace's all-in-one platform
has never been so simple.
It's extremely intuitive and easy to use.
Plus, with our mobile optimized sites,
your content automatically adjusts
so your content looks great on any device.
Plus, with Squarespace
you get access to all their marketing tools and analytics,
and their award-winning customer care team
via email or live chat 24/7.
So, if you wanna check it out,
see why so many others have loved it,
see if it is right for you,
go ahead and start your free trial today
over at Squarespace.com/Phil
and when you realize you love it,
make sure you enter in the offer code Phil
to get 10% off your first purchase.
And then, in major tax/social media news,
we have to talk about the surprising decision
from the Supreme Court to block a Texas law.
So the law in question aimed
to prohibit social media companies
from removing posts based on political view-point
while the matter plays out in lower courts.
It's a law that's similar to another in Florida,
and it would apply to only social media platforms
with more than 50 million active monthly users,
like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube,
meaning that it would only regulate the top sites,
but it doesn't seem to impact
the smaller conservative platforms,
like Getter and Trump's Truth Social.
Now, Republican supporters of the measure
which was initiated after Trump was banned
from some platforms following the insurrection,
say "that it was an effort to fight against
what they claim is an attempt by Silicon Valley
to censor conservatives."
And back in December, a federal judge in Austin
issued a preliminary injunction,
blocking the law on the grounds that it violated
social media companies' first amendment right
to moderate content on their sites.
But then, that law was allowed to go into effect
after a split panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
stayed that injunction without providing any legal reasoning
or ruling on the merits of the appeal in a move
that shocked the tech industry.
After that, two trade groups representing Google
and Facebook and other tech giants
filed an emergency request
asking the Supreme Court to block the law
while they went through the appeals process,
calling it an "unprecedented assault
on the editorial discretion of private websites
that would fundamentally transform
their business models and services,"
and claiming that it "would compel platforms
to disseminate all sorts of objectionable viewpoints,
such as Russia's propaganda claiming
that its invasion of Ukraine is justified,
ISIS' propaganda claiming
that extremism is warranted,
Neo-Nazi or KKK screens denying or supporting the Holocaust
and encouraging children to engage
in risky or unhealthy behavior, like eating disorders."
Like I said, this was an unusual decision
because it was a five to four decision,
the High Court agreeing with tech companies
and blocking the law for now
and the reason this was an unusual decision
is you didn't just have conservatives
joining the liberals on the court.
Because in addition to the court's
three most conservative justices saying,
"Hey, let's let the law stand,"
liberal justice Elena Kagan also said that,
"Though she did not join the dissent,
nor did she provide reasoning of her own decision."
Now, as is typical with emergency applications,
the court's ruling was unsigned and gave no explanation,
but in the dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote,
"That the issues at hand in the Texas case were so unique
that they needed to be considered by the court
at some point in the future."
With him also expressing,
"skepticism over the tech companies' argument
that they are allowed editorial discretion,
similar to that given to newspapers
and more traditional publishers under the first amendment."
But before you cheer or boo too soon,
understand this is by no means the end
of the legal battle here.
With experts saying that the split decision
and Alito's remark signal that the court will likely want
to make a decision on the merits of this kind of case
and they will almost certainly have
the opportunity to do so soon.
The Texas case is still pending
in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
and Florida's very similar law, regulating tech companies
is also undergoing litigation.
While the Fifth Circuit Panel appears inclined
to rule in favor of the Texas law,
the SCOTUS decision comes less than two weeks
after the US Court of Appeals for the 11th circuit,
ruled unanimously that most of Florida's law
violated the First Amendment.
So, if the Fifth Circuit Panel upholds Texas's law,
it would put the two courts in direct contradiction,
then likely leaving the matter to be resolved
by the Supreme Court,
but that's where we are.
We're gonna have to wait to see what happens next.
And then let's talk about the drug problem,
though, I need to be more specific,
the illegal drug problem,
because there is a legal drug problem.
One of the questions when it comes to illegal drugs
is having restrictive laws around that.
Is it helpful? Does it have no impact?
Or does it actually make the situation worse?
And in the next little bit,
we're gonna be able to see way more data on this
because British Columbia just got permission
from the Canadian government to run a three year test
into decriminalizing most hard drugs.
We're talking about things that, yes,
there is a range, right?
You have MDMA but also cocaine, opioids, heroin, meth.
And so what this means
is that starting January 31st next year,
users found with small amounts of drugs,
meaning 2.5 grams or less,
won't be arrested or face charges.
Instead, they'll be pointed to resources
about how to get treatment.
But also, to be clear, that does not mean
this gives a green light for people
to openly sell and distribute drugs.
Also, regarding that 2.5 gram limit,
even for those that are for decriminalization,
they have criticized that as extremely low,
and it's actually way less than the already low 4.5 grams
of British Columbia had asked for.
And as far as the why are they doing this,
I mean, the timing is very notable.
It comes as the country and this province in particular
has faced a record number of overdose deaths.
With officials like Canadian Health Minister,
Dr. Teresa Tam, having pointed out
that the fear of criminal charges
possibly discourages people
from seeking help, writing, "Stigma and fear
of criminalization cause some people
to hide their drug use, use alone, or use in other ways
that increase the risk of harm,"
and saying, "substance use is a health issue,
not a criminal one."
And so without needing to fear charges,
the hope is that experiencing an overdose
or those witnessing one, will actually get help.
Notably, this decision isn't seen as a complete solution
to the ongoing crisis, and there are some
who think that it actually doesn't go far enough
and that's because, in part, many overdoses now
are caused by people using substances
without really knowing what's in them.
So the normal dose might end up being way too much
or it may be laced with other substances like fentanyl,
which is why there have also been calls
for the government to open up the market even more
and just regulate it with Dana Larsen,
a drug policy reform activist saying,
"I think we need stores where you can go in
and find legal heroin, legal cocaine, and legal ecstasy
and stuff like that for adults.
The real solution to this problem is to treat it
like alcohol and tobacco."
Though, obviously opinions range wildly
when you jump from decriminalization to legalization.
But whatever your opinion,
the data from this three year test
alongside similar policies
from a few jurisdictions around the world,
it's gonna be vital.
The big test of, is it viable
to decriminalize even the hard stuff?
I mean, we're seeing examples all over,
including in the states where back in 2020,
Oregon decriminalized many drugs,
making possession a class E violation
with just a $100 fine that can be waived
if a person just calls a hotline
and Portugal decriminalizing hard drugs
way back in 2001 with somewhat mixed results.
But while we wait to see how this plays out,
I do wanna pass the question off to you,
what are your thoughts regarding decriminalizing
and/or legalizing harder drugs?
I'm personally, at least for the decriminalization of use
or low level possession.
I just don't think that incarceration makes sense
unless you're a private prison and you're like,
"Oh, yay! Profits."
I very much agree that use is a health problem,
not a criminal problem,
but as far as decriminalizing it for people
that are selling it actively,
pushing it into communities, I don't know about that
and I don't know about the legalization
because you're talking about some really fucking crazy drugs
with heroin and meth.
Let me know what you're thinking.
That is ultimately where that story and today's show ends.
Thanks for watching. I love your faces.
If you want more news, click or tap right there
or in those links in the description.
My name's Philip De Franco. You've just been filled in.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.