--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. When you visit the doctor, you probably hand over your insurance, your ID, and contact details. It's just one of the many places that has your personal info. And if any of them accidentally expose it, you could be at risk for identity theft. LifeLock monitors millions of data points a second. If you become a victim, they'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: Johnny Depp wins his highly publicized defamation lawsuit against Amber Heard. Could this signal the end of the Me Too movement? Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven all the elements of defamation? Answer, yes. We discuss what led to the verdict and what comes next for the two stars. I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire editor-in-chief John Bickley. It's Thursday, June 2nd, and this is Morning Wire.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: As Democrats call for more gun control in the U.S., Canada announces a ban on AR-15s and a freeze on handgun ownership. And in a split decision, the Supreme Court deals a blow to a Texas law that bans tech companies from censoring free speech. Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: This show is sponsored by The Pearl Source. June is officially Pearl Month, and there's no better time to buy beautiful and timeless Pearl jewelry for that special someone in your life from the Pearl Source. The Pearl Source cuts out the middleman by eliminating those crazy markups by jewelry stores and sells directly to you at up to 70% off retail prices. For a limited time, Morning Wire listeners can take 15% off your order with promo code MORNINGWIRE. If you want to find Pearl jewelry at the best prices online, then go straight to the source, the Pearl Source.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: A verdict has been reached in one of the most watched televised trials in U.S. history, Johnny Depp's defamation case against Amber Heard. A jury has found that Heard defamed Depp in her 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post, but it also found in favor of Heard on one of the allegations included in her countersuit against Depp. Here to discuss the outcome of this much-watched trial is Daily Wire senior editor Ash Short. So Ash, what does the verdict tell us?
--:-- Ash Short: Well, it tells us the jury didn't believe Amber Heard's accusations of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse at the hands of Johnny Depp, which is stunning considering how difficult it is to prove defamation. But it is interesting that while Depp won on all claims of defamation, Heard only won on one out of the three regarding a statement Depp's attorney made about Heard orchestrating a hoax.
--:-- Ash Short: In the end, the jury awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages, plus $5 million in punitive damages. But Virginia law caps punitive damages at $350,000, so Depp has been awarded a total of $10,350,000. In contrast, Heard was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages for what the jury determined was defamation against her.
--:-- Ash Short: Now, what do you think this trial has done for Depp and Heard's careers? That remains to be seen, but based on public opinion, it looks like Johnny may be poised for a spectacular Hollywood comeback. On the other hand, casting directors may want to show solidarity with female accusers, regardless of the truthfulness of their claims. That could mean more roles for Amber Heard. One thing is certain, though, both Depp and Heard got a massive amount of press coverage for this trial, which could end up helping both of their careers long term.
--:-- Ash Short: Now, can you quickly recap the Depp-Heard relationship and how it went bad?
--:-- Ash Short: Sure, Johnny Depp met Amber Heard on the set of The Rum Diary in 2011. As is often the case with Depp, he started dating his co-star, and they were married in 2015. Barely a year later, the two separated, and their divorce was official in January 2017. In late 2018, Heard wrote an op-ed at the Washington Post claiming to be a victim of domestic violence. She didn't name Depp, but a few days later, he lost his role on Pirates of the Caribbean. But at trial, Disney claimed that the op-ed did not lead to his firing. Depp sued Heard for $50 million, claiming her op-ed defamed him and falsely portrayed him as an abuser when he said Heard was the abusive one in the relationship. Heard countersued Depp for $100 million.
--:-- Ash Short: And what did we learn during the trial? We learned a lot about both sides. We learned Depp has an alcohol and drug problem and can get angry. We saw video of him slamming cabinets in the kitchen that Heard secretly filmed in an attempt to prove he was violent. We also learned from multiple people that Heard was abusive. In testimony, Depp claimed she was the aggressor. She has a need for conflict. She has a need for violence. And though she sobbed on the stand, she produced no tears, something her acting coach said she struggled to do when acting.
--:-- Ash Short: And what was it that ultimately swayed the jury? I think it was a combination of things. Depp's team was able to effectively push back against Heard's claims and refute her allegations. But I think the fact that Heard couldn't actually produce a tear on the stand, contrasted with her demeanor and earlier tape testimony, really cemented her fate.
--:-- Ash Short: And what do you think this means for the Me Too movement in general? Well, many observers have commented that this trial is a reckoning for the Me Too movement. After a few men like Harvey Weinstein were credibly accused of sexual assault and abusive behavior, many accusations started ruining the careers of men for boorish or rude behavior. There were also allegations that turned out not to be true or were greatly exaggerated. The case of comedian Aziz Ansari is a great example. Ultimately, the sentiment we observed among the public throughout this trial is that most people are eager for a more nuanced and individualized approach to abuse claims rather than relying on broad axioms like believe women.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: Ash, thanks for your analysis. You're welcome.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: That was Daily Wire senior editor, Ash Short. Coming up, Canada imposes new gun bans. You can get this show and all of the content you love wherever you are, all on the Daily Wire app. Even if you're not a Daily Wire member, you'll be the first to know what's trending with mobile notifications for the latest news, and you'll get content from all of your favorite Daily Wire shows. Download the Daily Wire app and keep up with the facts no matter where your day takes you.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: As President Biden calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons, and California's Gavin Newsom pushes a gun buyback program, north of the border, Canada's prime minister has announced a ban on AR-15s and a freeze on handgun ownership in the country. The move caught the attention of many American observers who consider Canada to be a bellwether for political trends in the U.S. Daily Wire investigative reporter Mairead Elordi is here with the details for us. So, Mairead, tell us about Canada's new gun control measures.
--:-- Mairead Elordi: Sure. So, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the gun bans on Monday. He said the Canadian government is introducing legislation to implement a national freeze on handgun ownership. The new law wouldn't ban handguns already owned by Canadians, but it would ban them from getting new ones, with a couple of exceptions, for example, people who need handguns for their job.
--:-- Mairead Elordi: Here's Trudeau at a press conference. What this means is that it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer, or import handguns anywhere in Canada. In other words, we're capping the market for handguns. Besides the handgun freeze, Canada is also implementing a mandatory buyback program for quote assault weapons, which includes AR. The buyback program will go into effect later this year if the bill passes.
--:-- Mairead Elordi: Canadian Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino called it the country's most significant action on gun violence in a generation. Trudeau explained that besides hunting and sports shooting, there is, quote, no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.
--:-- Mairead Elordi: Okay, so Canada is banning AR-15s and other so-called assault-style weapons outright, and Canadians can also no longer buy handguns. That's correct. Now, does the law do anything else aside from those things?
--:-- Mairead Elordi: Yes. So the law also includes a red flag law, which would allow the government to strip someone's gun license if a court deems an individual a danger to themselves or others. The new law also increases the punishment for gun violence. The maximum sentence for indictable weapons offenses would be raised from one decade to 14 years. The new laws would also ban magazines that hold more than five rounds.
--:-- Mairead Elordi: Okay, so what's been the reaction from critics of this law? Well, critics in Canada say this legislation is misguided, that it fails to get at the heart of the gun violence problem. Raquel Dancho, a conservative member of the Canadian Parliament, said the law, quote, fails to focus on the root cause of gun violence in our cities, illegal guns smuggled into Canada by criminal gangs.
--:-- Mairead Elordi: So what prompted this new law? Does Canada have a gun homicide problem? Well, Canada has significantly less violent crime than the U.S. In Canada, the murder rate is about 16 per million, whereas the U.S. is closer to 43 per million. That said, violent crime has been trending up since about 2015 in Canada. Canada's deadliest mass shooting happened two years ago in Nova Scotia, where a gunman killed 22 people. But in general, this move by Trudeau does not seem to be prompted by trends at home. This particular proposal also comes less than a week after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, so it appears this is a reactive measure based on trends in the U.S.
--:-- Mairead Elordi: Is it legal for Trudeau to mandate a gun buyback program? What does the Canadian Constitution have to say about the right to bear arms? Actually, the Canadian Constitution does not address gun ownership. The Canadian Supreme Court clarified that further in 1993 when they ruled that Canadians do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. So for now, it appears that Trudeau will be able to move forward with this initiative without significant constitutional pushback.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: Mairead, thanks so much for reporting. Thanks, Georgia.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: That was Daily Wire investigative reporter Mairead Elordi. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Texas law that would prevent social media companies from engaging in viewpoint discrimination in their moderation policies. The court voted 5-4 to put HB 20 on hold, while a lower court decides whether the law can be enforced. Here to give us further details about the Texas social media law and what happens with it next is Daily Wire culture reporter Megan Basham. So Megan, to start, can you summarize what the arguments are for and against this law?
--:-- Megan Basham: Sure. So Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott has said that the law is a response to, quoting here, a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values. So this was Abbott announcing the signing of HB 20 last September. It prevents social media companies from banning users based upon the user's political viewpoints. It allows Texans who are wrongfully deplatformed or restricted to be able to file a lawsuit to get back onto that social media site. It also allows the Texas Attorney General to file suit on behalf of anybody who was wrongfully restricted from access to that social media site.
--:-- Megan Basham: All right, so the concern there is the potential for banning users for their political viewpoints. What the other side saying? Well, tech companies, including Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, they all argue that it's a freedom of speech issue for them as well. They insist that they apply their moderation policies in a nonpartisan way, But they also say that free speech also means not being compelled to host content they find objectionable.
--:-- Megan Basham: In an emergency application filed to block the law, they claimed that, and again, I'm going to quote, HB 20 would compel platforms to disseminate all sorts of objectionable viewpoints, such as neo-Nazi or KKK screeds denying or supporting the Holocaust, and encouraging children to engage in risky or unhealthy behavior like eating disorders. Now, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton disputed this. He said that the law wouldn't prohibit platforms from removing entire categories of content, like, say, pornography or foreign propaganda. But Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the tech companies requesting a stay. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch sided with Abbott and would have allowed that law to take effect.
--:-- Megan Basham: You know, it strikes me as an interesting mix of some of these justices on their opinions here. Yeah, it does. And we've kind of seen Kagan occasionally go that direction. Are there other laws like this? Yeah, there are. So Florida passed a similar bill, but last week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it likely violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and blocked it as well. So really, you have to say that this is part of a broader debate that we're having about what exactly the big social media platforms are. Are they private companies or are they modern town squares? The answer is that they're both. But where you put the weight in that question tends to inform how much freedom you feel the tech companies should have to limit speech.
--:-- Megan Basham: Justice Thomas, for example, has argued that the platforms ought to be viewed more like public utilities, where they have an obligation to accommodate everyone within the bounds of the law. But complicating that even further, is that the Biden administration has made it clear that it is working with social media companies to suppress and amplify speech in certain ways. So during the height of the pandemic, for instance, then White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki spoke about the administration working with Facebook to, quote, flag what she called medical misinformation. And she said that the White House has been in communication with social media companies to pressure them to take action against certain kinds of posts.
--:-- Megan Basham: Yeah, that acknowledgement caused a lot of stir. It did. And because of that, some argue that the social media platforms are acting as an arm of the government in some of this content moderation. And it is therefore the government censoring speech, something it's constitutionally not allowed to do. So I think at the end of the day, you have to say that this is a question that isn't going to go away for any branch of government. And even if the Texas law fails, no doubt we're going to see other kinds of bills and legal challenges on this issue. Yeah, no doubt we will. It's an ever-evolving topic.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: Megan, thanks for bringing us the latest. Yeah, my pleasure.
--:-- Host: Georgia Howe: That was Daily Wire culture reporter Megan Basham. Thank you for listening to Morning Wire. We created this show to bring more balance to the national conversation. If you want to join us in our mission, consider subscribing, leaving us a five-star rating, and most importantly, sharing our podcast with a friend. That's all the time we've got this morning. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back tomorrow with the news you need to know.
