Why People Are Freaking Out About That Deepfake Lawsuit & Section 230's Supreme Court Problem

字幕表動画を再生する

- We've got huge concerning updates
on the deep fake scandals,
monsters are setting aid for earthquake victims on fire,
the Supreme Court may be about to destroy the internet
as we know it
based on their decision around section 230,
there was another huge hazardous chemical spill.
We're gonna talk about all that and so much more
on today's brand new Philip DeFranco show.
So, buckle up, hit that like button.
And, very quickly, quick announcement,
I have heard your pleas,
so we'll be leaving up until the weekend
all the new stuff we've been dropping
over at BeautifulBastard.com.
I go through the texts,
I saw the screw you,
I don't get paid till Friday, texts.
I'm gonna give y'all a little extra time if you wanna snag
the I Love Naps gear,
because people will come and go,
but naps will always be there for you.
emotionally exhausted on an absurd number of colorways,
but also the classics.
And, screw it,
I'll even let you get some of the Go Easy On Yourself gear.
Yeah, grab any and all that you want while you can,
'cause I run that company like a chaotic idiot.
With that said, let's just jump into it.
We've got a big update regarding
that deep fake porn controversy
we talked about a few weeks ago, right?
That whole thing got a big spotlight on it
when a streamer by the name of Atrioc
was caught with an open tab to a deep fake porn website,
which notably hosted explicit deep fakes
of very high profile female streamers,
including his colleagues.
And, in addition to the general outrage and disgust,
you had some of the women
that have been featured on that site
like QT Cinderella speaking out
about how just fucked up deep fake porn is.
And, with that, vowing to sue the creator of the website
even after they took the site down.
But, the update there is, no,
apparently that's not gonna happen.
But, they're reportedly telling NBC News
that the legal framework for a potential path forward
is disheartening and adding,
"every single lawyer I've talked to
essentially have come to the conclusion
that we don't have a case."
There's no way to sue the guy.
And, that's apparently because,
while many states have laws regarding revenge porn,
only a handful have laws specifically regarding deep fakes.
And, this as,
even though that website was taken down,
those videos made without her knowledge or consent
can still be spread around the internet like wildfire.
Which also I think the unfortunate side effect
of that news breaking
is this may embolden those who want to do this.
Though, to those people,
I would warn not only is that fucked up
and I think wrong,
it's important to remember there was a time
where there were not laws against revenge porn.
The story also makes me think for a second
about just how fucking weird the internet is
and also what a weird place it must be
to be a female content creator,
and because you have all these photos and videos
that you didn't even fucking make
being spread all over the internet,
but at the same time,
on mainstream social platforms,
you have consensual photos being over moderated, right?
There were things like another massive streamer, Pokimane,
dealing with Instagram removing one of her photos
over "sexual solicitation".
And, oddly it pertained to a photo
that was posted back in July.
It was her in a pink blazer.
And, apparently the platform had an issue with her caption,
"anybody need a sugar momma?"
And, apparently all that violated the rules of the site.
because you cannot facilitate, encourage,
or coordinate sexual activity on Instagram.
So, something to keep in mind
the next time you post on social media,
anyone want to get filled in together.
But, also I think the issue on Instagram
isn't just female focused.
I think it it's scale focused.
And, the reason I say that is because the number of people
I've seen get banned on like Twitter and other platforms,
'cause they made a punch you in the throat joke,
which, if you're new here,
is like an inside joke between me
and all you beautiful bastards, right?
Algorithms not taking into context or jokes or any of that.
But, back to the main story,
I will say personally
I am disappointed that there's apparently
no legal path forward,
because while I know there were a myriad
of different opinions on the topic,
I think at the very least
I think there's an argument and a case for harassment.
And, then we've got big Dhar Mann updates to talk about,
because we're seeing him double down
on his fight against the allegations
that have been levied against him and his studio.
We talked about this last week,
he's a massive creator,
some of his videos getting hundreds of millions of views,
videos that are normally about moral
and inspirational lessons.
But, a number of his actors ended up actually protesting
over what they said was inadequate pay among other issues,
things like there was a toxic culture at the studio,
and if you spoke out about it,
you were fired.
And, saying when they tried to address this
and to have a meeting with Dhar Mann,
they couldn't,
instead only getting a meeting
with the head of production and HR.
Now, for his part,
Dhar Mann says he pays his actors well
and says that these allegations are false,
saying that he has feedback forms
and other means for actors to bring up problems.
And, we're starting to see more updates to this story,
like with one of the actors, Dylan Harris.
He posted a video claiming that Dhar Mann
threatened him with legal action.
- If you want to keep threatening to sue me,
guess what, dude?
I really love playing chess.
- And, then including screenshots of emails
with the subject line,
"Confidential and Privileged Settlement Communications,
Cease and Desist Regarding Dhar Mann",
though one of those screenshots did notably say
that because Dylan had deleted a post in question,
the team would no longer be pursuing action.
And, it's also worth noting that the TikTok we just showed
about the cease and desist is no longer on Dylan's page,
but that's also not where this story ends,
because Dhar Mann is continuing to defend himself
and proclaim his innocence,
versing things like this TikTok
of what appears to be people for Dhar Mann Studios
patting him on the shoulder to comfort him
while the song "We Are Family" plays.
And, then more concretely,
in an Instagram post yesterday, he said,
he is saddened for those affected
by everything going on
and for the various misleading stories that have spread,
saying he and some of the original actors
who have been with the studio since the start
are working together to get through this.
Also claiming that the actors who were protesting
haven't worked with the studio in years
and they only represent a small percentage
of the thousands of actors
that have been in Dhar Mann videos.
And, regarding that meeting that was mentioned,
he said that the formal meeting request
would start with production and HR,
not him,
and claiming he was never told to
or supposed to attend that meeting,
and saying the actors were asked
to put their concerns in writing,
but instead they came to our studio to disrupt production,
causing stress to crew members and actors,
and claiming certain protestors
even spread false information
to hurt the studio, my family, and me.
That's the reason why I have not met with these individuals.
And, again,
saying the claims against unfair pay are misinformation,
saying he recently came up with plans
to improve the studio's booking system,
boost communication,
and give out more consistent hours and pay.
But, while all this is happening,
the protestors have not stopped,
even holding a press conference with ABC7 News yesterday
where they reiterated a lot of their issues.
- If you're gonna profit off of these morals,
you need to at least give the people
that are working underneath them
the respect of what you're preaching.
- There are just basic elements
to running a motion picture company
that are not being met.
- So, who's lying?
Who's telling the truth?
What is going on?
We're gonna have to wait to see what all comes from this.
And, while we wait,
I'd love to know your thoughts
on what the answers to those questions are.
And, then a bunch of garbage people just burned aid
for earthquake victims, right?
So, this just happened in Germany at a Turkish supermarket
where a huge pile of donations,
including canned food and clothing,
was collected for the Turkey, Syria earthquake.
But, late one night,
these two dumpster bros come over
and light the stash on fire
with one of them also throwing a Turkish flag into the fire
suggesting they may have had xenophobic motives.
Were those sentiments possibly on the rise,
given that the German government
just announced plans to ease visa restrictions
for earthquake victims with relatives in the country.
Now, as far as the fire,
firefighters took two hours to extinguish the flames.
And, according to a police estimate,
the damage reportedly totals over $20,000,
which is just an out of nowhere unnecessary gut punch
for the survivors and everyone working around the clock
to save lives,
especially since we're continuing to see the death toll rise
going from 36,000 on Monday to 41,000 today.
And, this as millions have been left homeless
and much of the region sanitation infrastructure
has been damaged
and health authorities are desperately trying to prevent
a disease outbreak, right?
But, because the devastation from the earthquake
was so widespread,
you've got tons of people who haven't even showered
or cleaned off since the earthquake.
As well as there're being a shortage of cleaning water
and toilets making cholera and typhoid more likely.
But, still, despite all of this devastation,
we're still seeing amazing stories of survival
emerge from the rubble,
like these two brothers who are trapped under debris
for around 200 hours,
staying alive by rationing body building supplements,
drinking their own urine,
and swallowing gulps of air,
or stories coming out like a father and daughter
who were stuck for 209 hours before being rescued.
And, so again,
if you can and want to help out,
I'm gonna link to places where you can donate
in the description.
And, for those touched by this tragedy,
I wish you the best of luck.
My heart goes out to you.
And, then...
Y'all, what's going on?
There has been yet another hazardous chemical spill.
Right over the last few days,
we've been covering the train carrying hazardous materials
that derailed in Ohio,
prompting officials to do a controlled burn,
we've also been seeing other trained derailments,
and now we're seeing
the second major chemical spill in a month
after a truck carrying nitric acid
was involved in a crash on Interstate 10
in Tucson, Arizona yesterday,
with nitric acid being a highly corrosive material,
often used in manufacturing fertilizer and explosives.
And, according to the CDC,
exposure to it can cause irritation to the eye, skin,
and mucus membrane.
It can also cause delayed pulmonary edema, pneumonitis,
bronchitis, dental erosion.
And, as far as what we know about this crash,
actually very little information has been released so far,
including what caused the accident.
We've seen government officials
saying that the incident involved
a commercial truck tractor hauling a box trailer
that rolled over killing the driver.
A hazardous materials response unit,
the Tucson Fire Department,
and a number of local police departments
responded to the scene
closing off I-10.
And, actually,
as of recording,
the busy freeway is still shut down in both directions.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety
also evacuated all people in a half mile perimeter
around the area
and ordered those within one mile to shelter in place.
With a few hours later,
the shelter in place order being lifted,
but then it was reinstated again
at around 5:00 AM local time,
with the department advising
that anyone within the one mile perimeter turn off heaters
and or air conditioning systems
that bring in outside air,
and adding that,
while crews were attempting to remove the load
from the commercial vehicle,
gassing occurred,
and then, a few hours after that,
the shelter-in-place order was actually extended
to those within a three mile perimeter of the spill
with the agency saying recovery
and mitigation efforts on the hazardous materials
experienced temporary setbacks overnight
due to weather condition,
and saying crews have now removed
the material from the truck
and are utilizing dirt to mitigate further off gassing,
but, very significantly here,
it also said that those who have been evacuated
should expect to remain displaced
until approximately midday.
Though it's unclear if evacuees
will want to go back to their homes later today anyway,
especially given the height and concern
around the Ohio spill.
And, then did you know that two outta three guys
will experience some form of male pattern baldness
by the time that they're 35?
Maybe you have that friend,
that family member that's dealing with hair loss,
and, well,
thanks to the sponsor of today's show, Keeps,
you don't have to just sit around
and wait for that to happen.
Whether you're looking to prevent hair loss,
stimulate hair growth,
or just take better care of the hair that you have,
Keeps has you covered.
Keeps helps you stop hair loss before it's too late
with a scientific and affordable approach to treatments
that are up to 90% effective at reducing
and stopping further hair loss.
And, in addition to clinically proven treatments,
Keeps has an award-winning
all natural thickening shampoo and conditioner system.
And, you can get these products delivered
directly to your door,
meaning no more going in person to the doctor's office
for your prescription,
saving you both valuable time and money.
Hair loss stops with Keeps.
So to get your special offer,
go to keeps.com/defranco
or just click that link in the description,
that's keeps.com/defranco.
And, then the Supreme Court could fundamentally change
how the internet works
and content creators could be totally screwed, right?
In just a few days,
the high court is set to hear a landmark case
that has the potential to change
the last two plus decades of content moderation policy
as well as upend the business practices
of big tech as we know it.
So, details,
the case in question is called Gonzalez v Google,
and it focuses on Section 230,
the Communications Decency Act.
And, as we've talked about before,
Section 230 is a 1996 statute
that protects social media platforms
for being liable for the content that users post.
So, not only does it shield them from lawsuits
over what's posted on their sites,
but it also safeguards them from being sued
when they take down posts.
But, as battles over content moderation
have grown in recent years,
Section 230 has come under fire.
And, with Gonzalez,
this may be the tipping point.
The case was brought by the family
of a 23 year old US citizen who was killed in Paris
during a 2015 terrorist attack by the Islamic State
with the family arguing that Google,
YouTube's parent company,
aided in embedded terrorism,
because its algorithm recommended Islamic state videos
recruiting members and inciting violence.
But, and this is the crux of their claim here,
Google's algorithmic recommendation
should be considered as their own form of content.
So, Section 230,
which only shields platforms
from the content of third parties,
doesn't apply.
Now, notably here,
similar cases alleging that social media companies
have supported terrorist content
that led to actual attacks
have been dismissed by courts for years.
And, this case itself was actually dismissed
by a lower court.
But, very notably,
this conservative Supreme Court
has decided to hear the appeal.
And, because of that,
I really cannot understate how much is at stake here.
So, to get a better idea
of how serious the impacts all this could be,
we talked to Eric Goldman,
a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law
who specializes in internet law,
and is an expert on Section 230.
And, he told us that the Court's decision
to take up this case
is especially consequential,
because there's past precedent for Section 230
applying to those algorithmic recommendations.
And, that's the crux of Google's argument
against this case.
- The main legal argument against the plaintiffs
is that Section 230,
by its own terms,
made no distinction between algorithmic recommendations
and other ways that services gather, organize,
and promote third party content.
So, it's just a pure statutory argument.
You read the text,
it doesn't say what the plaintiffs are saying,
they're having to manufacture arguments,
why it should say what they're trying to say.
Section 230 has applied uniformly to that
for the last 25 years.
And, so the plaintiffs are really asking
for a dramatic and unprecedented change
to how we think about Section 230.
- Professor Goldman also saying
that another one of Google's central arguments
is that this ruling could have such a massive
and devastating impact on the internet,
that the Supreme Court can't ignore the policy implications.
Now, as far as what would actually happen
if the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs,
well, Goldman says that it's actually hard
to anticipate just how big this ruling will be,
because it depends on a number of factors,
which we will actually get to a bit later,
but he did give us a general idea.
- The short story is,
one possible conclusion,
is that the Court will say,
if the services take efforts to promote user content,
they lose Section 230.
They can still host it, they can still gather it,
but they...
If they do anything to promote it,
they will no longer have this legal shield.
In a situation like that,
then the internet starts to look a lot more
like Google Drive or Dropbox,
where people upload content,
there's a hosting function,
the services give them a URL,
and then we all have to do our own work
in order to get an audience for our content.
That would just change the internet at its very core
how we think about the internet.
And, that would be a bad outcome.
- And, if the Court decides that algorithmic recommendations
aren't covered by Section 230,
social media platforms would be stuck in what Goldman calls
the moderator's dilemma,
where they're essentially a force to choose
between all bad options,
first, because they'd be liable
for all content they recommend,
they'd have to moderate everything
with extreme precision and perfection,
but that's essentially impossible for these companies.
And, if they actually tried to do this,
it would likely result in them over blocking
and potentially censoring anything
that anyone says is defamatory,
because to not do so at risk lawsuit after lawsuit.
The second option
would be to go the complete opposite direction,
provide no moderation at all.
And, if they end up getting sued,
basically they would just argue willful blindness, right?
If I never tried, I never failed.
Well, that was an argument
that lawyers told clients to make
before Section 230 existed.
It hasn't really been tested in court since,
but if a judge did rule in favor of such a claim,
it would basically give social media companies a blank check
to allow offensive and violent speech to run wild.
And, then there's a third option.
- The third note is to say, I can't win this game.
I can't do it perfectly.
I can't let everyone have their say,
because I'm gonna be overrun by garbage content.
And, the only way then to win that game
is not to play at all.
And, so that's the real stakes I think in this case.
- With Goldman saying he thinks
that the more likely outcomes
are some combination of the first and third options,
the platforms will be forced
to regulate content super intensely or shut down altogether.
Which, key thing here,
would be absolutely devastating for content creators.
And, actually to illustrate exactly how bad this could be,
Goldman gave us a helpful example
of what the world would look like on our own platform here.
- So, the one likely scenario is that YouTube
would scale back any recommendations at all.
It would simply reduce the ability
of users to find the content that they think is relevant,
make it harder for them to do so.
That's not really a good business experience
for the users of YouTube.
One other possibility is that YouTube could say,
instead of reducing recommendations,
they'll keep doing recommendations
like they have in the past.
They'll just constrain the number of people
who are allowed to publish on YouTube in the first place.
- But, the people who would be allowed to publish
are only those who YouTube decides
are not legally risky, right?
And, obviously only a small percentage of creators
would get that privilege
and everyone else would kind of
just get kicked off the service.
- From that perspective,
one likely scenario of any change to Section 230 here
is that we're gonna see "the rich get richer",
the people who already have audiences
and already have power in the marketplace of ideas,
they're gonna continue to get the same kind of treatment
in the...
That they've got in the past.
It's everyone else, the small players,
the people who could become big influencers in the future,
but haven't gone that far yet.
They may never get that chance,
because the doors will be closed to them.
- But, also,
with all this,
let's be clear,
this isn't just something that's going to apply
to Google and YouTube.
This would impact all social media companies
that host third party content
and are currently protected by Section 230.
And, just in case you thought the story couldn't get worse,
it does.
While those are some scenarios that Goldman says
are likely to come out of this whole ruling,
Gonzalez isn't the only case where the Supreme Court
could totally upend the internet.
Literally one day after they hear Gonzalez,
the justices are set to consider a very similar case
called Twitter v Taamneh,
with that focusing on whether platforms
are liable for terrorist related content
posted by their users under federal anti-terrorism law.
And, very notably hear,
Goldman says that content monetization
is at play in these cases, right?
Because, lower courts have said
that paying terrorists for content could violate the law.
And, if that's upheld,
there's a possibility that companies like YouTube
would have to stop monetizing content,
because they can't manage the risk,
or at least very significantly pair down
who gets monetization.
And, then actually even beyond those two cases,
there are two others that the Supreme Court could take up
regarding new laws in Florida and Texas,
laws as it aim to ban social media companies
from taking down certain political content or accounts
among other wide ranging regulations.
And, just at the end of January,
the justices asked the Biden administration
to weigh in on the cases,
effectively delaying a decision to take them up,
at least for now.
But, it's widely believed that the Court
will have to consider these matters eventually,
and even possibly in the next term beginning this October.
And, all four of these have the potential
to completely change the internet.
- Just assume for a moment,
this is like a package of bad ideas.
So, it's not just one bad idea.
There's a lot going on there.
In other words,
for the internet to look like it does today,
we have to win all four of those cases perfectly.
And, those are really long odds
that make me very, very nervous.
- Right?
And, to that last point, Goldman noted,
we really don't know where the justices
are going to fall on this question, right?
Justice Clarence Thomas has written a couple of statements
criticizing Section 230,
but because this issue cuts across partisan lines,
Goldman says he really has no idea
where the other justices will land.
And, while it's unknown
when or if the Court will take up
the Florida and Texas cases,
we will have an answer on both Gonzalez and Taamneh
by the end of the term in June.
- So, basically I'm marking June 30th
is basically that the RIP internet date
that I'm gonna have a little head stone carved for.
- So, hey,
I guess mark your calendars.
But, on that,
cheery note,
the way I wanna close this out is what are your thoughts?
What do you make of all this?
And, then I wanna take a second to thank
one of the fantastic sponsors of today's show,
Hello Fresh.
Hello Fresh gets farm fresh, pre-portioned ingredients,
and seasonal recipes delivered right to your door,
making healthy, eating at home fun, easy,
and affordable.
And, with there fast and fresh options,
you can get dinner ready in 30 minutes or less.
Yeah, fast and fresh recipes
are the newest meals that you can cook in under 15 minutes
with great options like falafel, power bowls,
and steak and potatoes with bearnaise,
which by the way,
bearnaise sauce on everything, please.
That's right, you stan musicians,
I stan condiments.
And, y'all, it's easy to customize select meals.
You can swap out proteins and sides
and upgrade to your favorites,
including organic chicken and organic ground beef.
And, no matter your lifestyle or meal preferences,
Hello Fresh has recipes
sure to please everyone at your table,
even for the pickiest of eaters.
And, I know that because Hello Fresh comes in clutch
for me and my family
and I really don't wanna undersell that point,
because, for me,
oh,
it's so frustrating to make a meal
and then a child not eat it.
This has genuinely made it so much easier,
especially because the pre-portioned ingredients save time
and the recipes are consistently good.
It makes putting a home cooked meal on the table,
not only delicious,
but I would say more importantly, easy.
So, make meals easier and better tasting
by going to hellofresh.com/phil65
and use code Phil65 for 65% off,
plus free shipping.
And, then this is a fun story,
'cause I gotta get on an airplane soon.
There have been way too damn many close calls
involving airplanes recently.
In fact, there have been so many
that the acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration
just issued a rare safety call to action
for the industry, right?
In a memo,
acting FAA administrator, Billy Nolan,
said he would form a safety review team,
convene a safety summit,
and order a review of aviation safety data
to see whether there are other incidents
that resemble ones we have seen in recent weeks.
Now, notably here,
Nolan did not flag any specific instances,
but there have been multiple ones
that have made the headlines in recent weeks.
But, there's so much random crazy bullshit
happening right now,
very possible you missed it, right?
There have been a handful of events
that a National Transportation Safety Board spokesperson
said presented a significant risk of a catastrophic outcome,
with the FAA and National Transportation Safety Board
currently investigating those.
The first, which we talked about at the time,
took place at JFK Airport on January 13th
when an American Airline's jet crossed runway
right in front of a Delta Airlines flight
that was getting ready to take off.
Then, just under two weeks ago,
a FedEx cargo plane
almost landed on top of
a Southwest Airline's passenger flight
at Austin Bergstrom International Airport.
This after an air traffic controller
had cleared the FedEx jet to land on the runway
where the Southwest plane had been cleared to take off.
The NTSB saying those two planes
came within just 100 feet of each other.
And, according to the Washington Post,
the NTSB said just yesterday
that it's investigating two other situations
involving United Airlines flights
at airports in Hawaii,
with one of those incidents taking place in Honolulu
and was very similar to the events
in Austin and New York, right?
A cargo jet operated by the company Cessna
and a United Passenger airplane.
While there's been very little reporting on this,
according to the post,
the FAA said an air traffic controller
told the United crew to stop on a taxiway
before reaching the runway,
but the aircraft just crossed instead,
with the Cessna stopping about 1,170 feet
from the United jet.
And, then that other Hawaii United episode
was totally different,
with this one actually happening back in December.
But, there's only been extensive news coverage of it
in the last 48 hours or so.
And, that was a United flight full of passengers
taking off from the Maui Airport
climbing for about a minute
and then just taking a sudden nose dive,
though luckily not crashing,
but coming just 775 feet above the Pacific Ocean.
So, I think it's a good thing that the FAA
is taking action here,
but also notably this comes at a time
where the FAA is facing growing scrutiny,
not only because of what we just talked about,
but because of that insane incident last month
when a key safety bulletin system went down
prompting the agency to ground all flights nationwide
for the first time since 9/11.
And, regarding that,
last week,
representatives on the House Transportation Committee
expressed their concern that the FAA
had not responded quickly enough
to safety and management issues
that have existed for a while now.
And, to that point,
timing's always important with these stories.
Nolan just so happened to issue a safety memo
one day before he was set to testify
before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation
regarding the safety bulletin system outage.
Although that hearing is taking place
as we're recording today's show,
so we're gonna have to wait
to talk about that tomorrow at least.
But, unfortunately,
whatever happens there,
it's really unclear
how they're going to make this situation better.
And, that's in part
because there's a huge fundamental barrier here,
the total lack of stable leadership, right?
Many federal lawmakers have argued
that the biggest obstacle the FAA faces
is the fact that it hasn't had a permanent leader
since the last administrator stepped down
back in March.
And, all these recent issues just underscored that.
And, President Biden
has actually nominated Phillip Washington,
chief executive of Denver International Airport
to head the agency,
but the Senate hasn't confirmed him,
because there are concerns about his qualifications.
And, so you take all of that
and it's why we're gonna obviously keep our eyes
on this story.
And, then churches and drugs,
let's talk about 'em,
because Vice recently published the article
where they interviewed the founder
of the Divine Assembly,
a church based in Salt Lake City, Utah.
And, they are just one of the growing number of churches
that worship psychedelics like mushrooms, peyote,
and others.
With the Divine Assembly
not providing the drugs to their 5,000 members
or telling people how they should host mushroom ceremonies.
It goes through other spiritual experiences
like meditation rooms, mushroom growing courses,
and ice baths.
Notably, the Divine Assembly's founder
is both a former state legislator and an ex-Mormon
who has also acknowledged their strange set of circumstances
saying,
I think a lot of people look at what we do
if they come out of organized religion
and they say, this is bullshit.
These people are just using the idea of religion
to get around drug laws,
and saying,
I wish they could see inside my mind, inside my heart,
and just see the changes that have happened,
and are happening,
and just see how I am seeing the divine
on a daily hour by hour basis.
And, to his point,
it's not quite that easy to circumvent drug laws.
There are only three religious organizations
that have legal exemption to use drugs in their practice.
And, while the rest
believe that they're protected under religious freedom,
their use is still technically illegal.
But, reportedly they can be legally defensible
if the churches prove that they are sincere
in their use of drugs as a religious experience,
as well as taking safety measures
to protect their congregation.
Well, that may sound easy enough to you,
the Divine Assembly specifically
fights to keep their group informal,
so they don't actually tell people how to worship
in any capacity.
And, according to a New York based attorney
who wrote a guide for churches like this
to navigate the law,
the Divine Assembly's dedication to being non-dogmatic
and a lack of protocol
could make it harder for them to defend themselves.
But, she also added,
there has to be an understanding
that religion is an incredibly broad spectrum
and that there are going to be leaders who say,
this is how I believe,
which is to not force beliefs upon someone.
However, another key thing,
their founder,
after his years as a legislator,
is on good terms with law enforcement,
even reportedly informing them
that the Divine Assembly uses
a Schedule One controlled substance.
Also saying he's not concerned about being pursued
for their drug use,
but did mention that the church
will not defend any individual members arrested.
And, when talking about this,
it's important to note,
we've seen churches like this
be on the receiving end of law enforcement before,
like the Zide Door Church in East Oakland
that was raided by police in 2020.
Though that isn't quite the one-to-one comparison,
because Zide Door did distribute mushrooms and cannabis
to their congregation in exchange for a donation
unlike the Divine Assembly.
But, for now,
we're gonna have to wait to see what happens
with this church specifically,
and also the continued rise of churches like this.
Personally, I'm of the opinion of,
if you're a grown adult,
your brain is done growing.
I think if you have medical supervision,
you should be able to take mushrooms.
And, if that happens,
in let's say a church of some sort,
cool.
I'd rather a church use their tax exempt status
to help try to expand someone's mind,
let them look into themselves,
see how they're connected to other human beings,
rather than, let's say,
spend hundreds of millions of dollars
lobbying to keep rights from people,
because they were like born gay or something,
or who hide and move predators in their flock.
And, then we've had another prime minister tapping out,
though technically this is a first minister,
but the sentiment's the same.
For just a few weeks ago,
we talked about
New Zealand's prime minister, Jacinda Arden, resigning,
saying she's burned out,
didn't have enough in the tank to do the job.
And, most Americans were like, wait, what?
You're just willingly letting go of a position of power?
That's a thing?
Well, now Scotland's first minister, Nicola Sturgeon,
has just done the same thing.
Well, she didn't specifically cite burnout
as a reason for resigning.
It's pretty clear she's exhausted, right?
Sturgeon's been Scotland's
longest longest serving first minister.
She's also the first woman to ever hold the position.
She's been in politics since '99,
leading the charge for Scotland's independence from the UK,
guiding the country through the COVID-19 pandemic
as first minister.
But, today announcing that she was stepping down,
though she made sure to mention
that her decision was not in response
to the latest political pressure,
this after recent controversies regarding gender reform,
instead saying that her reasons were rooted
in her own personal struggle
with whether she can continue to do the job well.
- To be clear, I'm not expecting violins here,
but I am a human being as well as a politician.
My point is this,
giving absolutely everything of yourself to this job
is the only way to do it.
The country deserves nothing less,
but in truth,
that can only be done by anyone for so long.
For me, it is now in danger of becoming too long.
- Though I do think it's important to note
and it is a key thing here
is that her approval ratings right now
are reportedly the lowest they have been
since she has taken office.
But, regardless,
many political figures in Scotland
as well as UK have applauded Sturgeon
in her historic service
as far as ministers.
And, so right now as we move forward,
there are a number of unknowns,
starting with who the hell's gonna replace her.
However, Sturgeon said that she'll continue to serve
until someone else is elected.
Also, the push for Scotland's independence
is hanging in limbo.
People really don't seem to know what that looks like
without Sturgeon's leadership,
though there she did mention that she doesn't intend
to fully leave politics
and will still fight for the cause,
saying that the support for Scottish independence
needs to be solidified and grow.
And, that is where today's show ends.
Thank you so much re a part of my daily dives
into the news for you.
My name's Philip DeFranco,
you've just been filled in.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.