00:00:00
Speaker 1: It's Tuesday, May one. I'm oscar Ramiras in Los Angeles and this is the daily diet. President Trump has warned Iran not to threaten the US again, or it will face its official end. This happened shortly after a rocket landed near the US embassy in Baghdad. Iran quickly responded with a hashtag hashtag never threatened in Irania. The US has deployed bombers and an aircraft carrier to the area as Iran has increased its uranium enrichment production. Nahal Tusi, foreign affairs correspondent for Politico joins US to discuss the rising tensions with Iran. Next, is revenge porn considered free speech? The Illinois Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether the state's revenge porn law violates freedom of speech after a woman sent nude photos of her husband's mistress to friends and family as an example for why the marriage went that. Deanna Paul Homo, sex crimes prosecutor joins US to discuss revenge porn laws. Finally, now the Game of Thrones is over, as Appointment TV officially ended, Will there ever be another show that you have to make time to watch weended air or have streaming services and social media change the way we watch TV forever. My producer Miranda joins us to discuss it. Will ever all watch a show together again? It's news without the noise. Let's dive in. You know, we're right now dealing with Iran, and they put out so many false messages that Iran is totally confused. I don't know that might be a good thing. Joining us now is in the hall, TUSI, Foreign Affairs correspondent at Politico. Let's talk about Iran, the increased tension that is going on right now. The President just was exchanging some words over Twitter, telling Iran basically, do not threaten the United States or I will make it your official end. And Iran's foreign minister quickly responded back in kind, saying hashtag never threatened an Iranian tell us a little bit about what's going on right now. Tens kind of back and forth right now between the Iranian leaders and President Trump on his Twitter feed. And it's very strange because President Trump recently has been trying to calm things down. He has said things like I want Iran to call me. I just want to talk to them. He has thought out said he does not want to go to war with Iran, and yet he puts out this thread out there. And maybe it's because he was sitting there thinking, you know what, I need to be tough again. I can't seem like I'm coming across as too sauce. But when you say something like you know, this is going to be the official end of Iran, that's a pretty loaded statement and it actually offends a lot of Iranians, including like ordinary Iranians that the Trump administration says that they want to support. Iran is a civilization that's been around for thousands of years, so saying that you're going to officially end it is is quite the claim. And I think he might have undercut himself with a lot of ordinary Iranians. What started all of these tensions because we heard that there might have been some Americans that were being targeted. That's why the President sent over some bombers and some aircraft carriers to the area. Did all the stem from US being pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal? Yeah, I mean the tensions have really been building up for month to month. The United States pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, imposed a ton of new sanctions, damaging Iran's economy, and then recently the United States, the Trump administration announced it was going to declare a major piece of Iran's military as a terrorist group. Now, the Iranians, you know, they've kind of been still sticking with the nuclear deal, but recently they said they're going to take steps to reduce their commitment to the deal. They also are pretty upset about the terrorist designation of one of their major military units. And so this has just been a situation where now they are apparently making moves that the US fields are threatening, whereas there is also the argument that the US is making moves that the Iranians feel are threatening. And so it's kind of becoming the question of like the chicken or the egg, like which came first, whose threat came first, and which one is going to lead to what? Iranian officials have said that they've quadrupled their uranium enrichment production. Their year ranium that they have would not would still be enriched only to that three point six seven percent limit that was set under the nuclear deal, but they could go beyond their stockpile limitations pretty soon. How does this figure into the whole discussion. What they're hoping to do is they've given the Europeans and other parties to the deal, like Russia and China a couple of months to find ways to ease the economic suffering that they are facing right now as a result of U S sanctions. So they said, look, guys, you need to help us get out of this economic mess, otherwise we're going to start walking away from the deal and enriching uranium and doing these other things that puts them in violation of the deal. Because the way the Iranians look at it is, look, we signed up to this deal saying we would eliminate our nuclear program so that you guys would list economic sanctions that were already on place earlier, and so our economy would improve. And so they just feel like it's become a very one sided deal. And I just don't see how the Europeans are going to be able to pull together anything that helps you run the economy in the next sixty days. I just don't understand how that's going to happen because European up miss cannot force their businesses to do business in Iran, and that's really what it's going to take to help their economy. If the Europeans do come to some sort of deal, some type of agreement, where does the US stand on this. I've seen that they're still threatening to sanction companies that import oil from Iran, things like that. So what is the US going to do it? If they come up with some type of deal. The US is taking a very much like a like a take no prisoner's approach to this thing. The thing that's really interesting about the u S sanctions on Iran is that they target companies and governments elsewhere beyond Iran and beyond the US that do business with Iran, So European companies, Chinese companies, etcetera. They are subject to U S sanctions, meaning they can't access the U S market if they try to do business in Iran. And if the Europeans were to trying some way to get around and I don't know how they're going to manage to do that, especially if they rely on the dollar, as you know, they exchange as the main currency. If if they can do that, if they're going to try, I think the US will have to impose sanctions on some of these European companies or firms, or Chinese or Russian, I should say, and if they don't, if they if the Americans don't do that, then it kind of is like these other countries are calling the United States bluff on sanctions. But I think this administration very much is prepared to issue fines and cut off the US market from some of these foreign companies just to send a message that they should not do business with Iran. How much of all this is bluster? And how serious are these threats? There was a rocket that landed near the U. S. Embassy in Baghdad, and they said that nobody was harmed and was kind of unclear who was behind the attacks. But that's what prompted the President to tweet out for rand wants to fight. That will be their official end. So where are we with this? I mean, you're asking the million dollar questions? How much of this is just a bunch of talk and how much of it is serious willingness to take military action against people organizations that the U. S Think threatens Americans? Because both sides said they don't want where The President has said that, and Iranian officials have said that as well. Well. Yeah, but they east also say, but if the other side does something, you know, we will respond with military force. So the question is who's going to go first and who's gonna try to de escalate this the best. There are efforts, They're talking to other countries, people are trying to quietly mediate and bring people off the cliff a little bit. There are also reports that there were Iranian allied militia groups that announced and said they had nothing to do with the rocket being fired. That might be a sign of them trying to calm down tensions. But yeah, I mean, look, you know, wars can start over any number of things, and this is one of those situations where it could be some low level guy like accidentally firing and gone and you know, next thing, you know, we could have another war. And I think that's what really really worries a lot of people. The last question I have do we have any official communications, back channel communications with Iran? Because the President said I want them to call me so we can negotiate something. Do we have that open line of communication? Well, the Swiss serve as our protecting power in Iran, so they've always been a channel for us to communicate with them. Officially. The Iranians do have an office with the United Nations there's probably ways that we can get information to them, and also it's quite possible all but I don't think they'll admit it. That the CIA probably has some sort of a line to Iranian intelligence that they probably don't want to make public. And that's just my guests, but it's probably a pretty smart guest, you know. But let's be honest to do so much of this is actually being done like in public. It's like, why do you need it? Back to right. That's one of the things that continues to amaze me how a lot of this does play out there and which leads to a lot of misconceptions, a lot of misunderstandings because it is playing out on Twitter instead of these official lines. So well monitor this because I know a lot of people are very concerned. Now, twose foreign affairs correspondent at Politico, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you have a good day. In each state statute and all of them have different varying language. Some of them require and intent to harass the person and others just require that you disseminate a photo where there is an identifiable victim and that one of her intimate parts of explos Joining us now is Dianna Paul, national reporter for the Washington Post and a former sex crimes prosecutor. We're gonna be talking about revenge porn. This has been out there for quite some time now. There's forty five states right now that have revenge porn laws on the books. But there's a certain case in Illinois that's arguing that revenge porn is free speech, and they're saying that the laws there are unconstitutional. It has to do with a woman whose named Bethany Austin. Her and her husband were having a rough time. He was having an affair with the neighbor. She published some photos of her, some nude photos of her, and after that she was arrested. Tell us a little more details of their specific situation and how this relates to the lawsuit that they brought forward. She was in relationships fore and a half years. They were engaged, and she learned about this affair that was going on. They had on in technology and her iPad was linked to the eye cloud that his loose linked to and everyone acknowledges that they knew this at the time, but so she received the conversation sations between her fiance and this neighbor as well as nude photos of the neighbor, and when it came to them deciding to tell all of their family and friends that they were calling off the wedding, he wanted to date that it was mutually agreeable, and she says she wanted to tell them the truth. The fiance then, allegedly, according to the complete, spread rumors about his fiance calling her crazy and saying that she doesn't cook or through house chores, and so that led him speaking at another woman's house and Beth Indian response, she sent a four page letter with attachments of the nude photos as well as the text message conversation to family and friends, and subsequently she was arrested under an Illinois revenge for law also known as non consensual for anatraphy. Now, the question that I have Typically we think of a revenge porn thing. It's a sex stortion type of thing. We're gonna put you in a bind or something, and they put the photos, like on a social media platform something like that. This was a very small occurrence. She sent it to family members basically just saying this is why we're breaking up. It's not like it was disseminated widely. Is that matter at all in this case. It does matter because given each state statute, and all of them have different varying language, some of them require and intend to harass the person, and others just require that you disseminate a photo where there is an identifiable victim and that one of her intimate parts is exposed to Illinois is one of those laws where they're arguing that she in fact did all of the elements that would lead a prosecutor to be able to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt. She didn't necessarily mean it to harass the other woman. It was really to prove her husband wrong. So how is Bethany arguing this that this is free speech? I think I read that her attorney is saying that these nude photos to the husband were a gift and you don't really get a say in what happens to them after that. I mean, is that really the central tenant of what the free speech argument is? The free speech argument comes down to how a court analyzes the situation. And so they can either analyze it by looking at each individual image and determining it on a content based analysis, but that requires a really high level of legal scrutiny and something that's very challenging for a government to show that it was that serious of an interest that they've done it in as a minimal way as possible. The other way a court could analyze it is by looking at the interest that the state has in protecting the privacy of its citizens. And so if a court means toward the first one, it could make it that free speech is protected by the Constitution. But if they look at it the second way, then it's likely that the court follows what other states who have brought this up to court has decided, and that would say that the government has this interest in protecting everybody's privacy, and therefore it's an acceptable restriction on speech. It's such an intimate thing, even though it's so easy to share now, I think for most people, if you're sharing a photo with somebody, a nude, intimate photo like that, the expectation is that you don't want it to be out there. So it's going to be interesting to see how the Illinois Supreme Court will rule on this one. Specifically, how are these revenge board laws doing overall? They're making their way through courts all over the place. In Texas, it's happening in Vermont. There was something that passed. Also, how is this working across the country? Vermont Supreme Court world last year that a sexually explicit image deserved as much privacy as other forms of sensitive information like medical records or financial information. Texas has a case that is currently pending at the state's highest court. We don't know when it's going to be decided. There's no deadlines for that, and there's still different agencies and people filing reefs in the case. And then we have the Illinois case, which they argued last week, and again we don't know when the decision will come down. Dianna Paul, national reporter for The Washington Post, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you so much. You're sharing in theb all of it like it's amazing. It's magic, you know what, I would rather just be amazing. Producer, Miranda, we're gonna touch a little bit on the big event that happened over the weekend. Game of Thrones, the finale, they said an all time record for HBO the ratings. They drew in thirteen point six million viewers for the initial airing of the series finale. But you add in replays. You added early streaming numbers, and that figure climbs to nineteen point three million, their records for Game of Thrones and for HBO also. I mean, it was a huge cultural event almost we're not going to talk about what happened in the show specifically. There was some more flubs, there was water bottles. People weren't happy with the way it ended. You know, there was petitions for rewrites for the season. That's for fans of the show. The broader implications are really how TV has changed. Everybody signaling that this could be the end of appointment TV. This is the last blockbuster TV show of our lifetime. And that's because so many people would gather around that whole notion of water cooler talk. This is something that everybody watched and the next morning they were all talking about it at work. So let's start off with kind of a definition and what is appointment TV? Miranda, Well, I think you're being a little bit fatalistic about it if you agree with that assumption, because appointment TV is just TV shows and programming that you schedule your life around. It doesn't have to be these big, grandiose dramas like Game of Thrones, or the sopranos are breaking bad or mad Men. It can be things like you know, Seinfeld and Friends, the Office. How many people watched Jim and Pam get married. They've been saying that the death of appointment TV is going to happen since when Tevo first came around and it made it so easy to record your shows, fast forward the commercials, or watched them later. So this isn't a new concept of whatever is going to happen next is the death of appointment TV. They said the same thing when Netflix started streaming TV shows and Amazon Prime and all that stuff started happening. And that's the point. Though. Things are changing with the way we consume stuff. Part of it is also that you do have to set your life around the shows and make the time to watch it. Part of it is now with the way we consume it and have social media and everything is the spoilers. If you don't watch something like a Game of Thrones on the night of, by the next morning, it's hitting all the news, it's hitting your social streams, it's your friend text chains are talking about it. I know you had to put your phone away during Game of Thrones on Sunday night I went to screening like a little tiny theater house. It was super cool. But we're in the West Coast. We had to see it at West Coast time at nine pm, so for three hours I had my phone away so that you couldn't see any spoilers. But this is all kind of with factors in now to disappointment TV. Back in the day, there were no spoilers like that, And now if you're not watching it right when something is airing, something as big as like a Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad even when it was going, you run that risk of spoiling everything. And that's what they're saying is significant about Game of Thrones. It launched the same year as Twitter, so people have grown up with this show in an era where live tweeting is common. So you don't necessarily have to do a big watch party with your friends and your family or whatever. You can live watch it with thousands of fans on Twitter and have in time discussions about what's happening, What did you just see? Did you notice that? That kind of stuff. So analysts are saying that it's possible that Game up Phones if it were premiere today, wouldn't have the same cultural impact that it had because of just the timing of it was really lightning in a bottle. Yeah. I mean, do I think it is the end of appointment TV now that Game of Thrones is gone? No? I think there will be some other show that will capture the cultural, big cultural interests of a lot of people, and people will want to watch it together and get those watch parties going. But the way we consume stuff is different now. You know, as a Netflix or Hulu, these streaming services, they release seasons as a whole. It's the whole ten episodes, so you don't get that incremental weekly build up, that excitement, but then you have the two weeks where everyone's talking about and then stranger things are dead to Me, and then it's done. I was in the hair salon on Friday covering my ears because people were talking about that dead to Me show and I haven't seen it yet. That's part of this appointment TV thing. It's changing things. Whereas a week to week incrementalism. You'll watch a show on the streamers, it's a flash in the pan almost and you never know when someone else is watching it. To think of the conversations you have, did you see that game of Thrones episode last night versus have you seen Dead to Me? Or where are you in Dead to Where are you? You never know, you're not watching it in tandem with people a lot of times, or you're just recapping a whole season of something to somebody. The streamers are probably going to have to adjust what they do. There's no reason why Netflix can't drop an episode of Stranger Things over the course of twelve weeks as opposed to one big You know, it takes you a whole weekend to watch, but you're done with it and then it's out of your mind for another three years. People just watch stuff differently. Think about also, if you go home and sometimes you're just not in the mood to pick up a new show or to watch something that's going to be involved with a lot of story elements, like a Game of Thrones. You just want to watch something silly and something that you know. That's why we go back to it all the time, why The Office is the number one streamer for Netflix. It's gonna be interesting to see what that next big show will be. I think there will be one. It might take a few years before it happens, but for now, a lot of people are kind of sad that this is done, and then you you lose that camaraderie with following along with these shows with people. When you think about the end of Game of Thrones, though it's not over, there are at least what is it, eight other Western roast them shows in the pipeline, so they're just trying to capitalize on whatever popularity they can at that point. Thanks Randa, Thanks Oscar. That's it for today. Join us on social media at Daily Dive Pod on Twitter and Daily Dive Podcast on Facebook. Leave us a comment, give us a rating, and tell us the stories that you're interested. Follow us and I Heard Radio, or subscribe wherever you get your podcast. The Daily Dive is produced by Miranda Rendo and engineered by Tony Sargantina. I'm Oscar Ramirez. This was your Daily Dive.
Speaker 1: It's Tuesday, May one. I'm oscar Ramiras in Los Angeles and this is the daily diet. President Trump has warned Iran not to threaten the US again, or it will face its official end. This happened shortly after a rocket landed near the US embassy in Baghdad. Iran quickly responded with a hashtag hashtag never threatened in Irania. The US has deployed bombers and an aircraft carrier to the area as Iran has increased its uranium enrichment production. Nahal Tusi, foreign affairs correspondent for Politico joins US to discuss the rising tensions with Iran. Next, is revenge porn considered free speech? The Illinois Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether the state's revenge porn law violates freedom of speech after a woman sent nude photos of her husband's mistress to friends and family as an example for why the marriage went that. Deanna Paul Homo, sex crimes prosecutor joins US to discuss revenge porn laws. Finally, now the Game of Thrones is over, as Appointment TV officially ended, Will there ever be another show that you have to make time to watch weended air or have streaming services and social media change the way we watch TV forever. My producer Miranda joins us to discuss it. Will ever all watch a show together again? It's news without the noise. Let's dive in. You know, we're right now dealing with Iran, and they put out so many false messages that Iran is totally confused. I don't know that might be a good thing. Joining us now is in the hall, TUSI, Foreign Affairs correspondent at Politico. Let's talk about Iran, the increased tension that is going on right now. The President just was exchanging some words over Twitter, telling Iran basically, do not threaten the United States or I will make it your official end. And Iran's foreign minister quickly responded back in kind, saying hashtag never threatened an Iranian tell us a little bit about what's going on right now. Tens kind of back and forth right now between the Iranian leaders and President Trump on his Twitter feed. And it's very strange because President Trump recently has been trying to calm things down. He has said things like I want Iran to call me. I just want to talk to them. He has thought out said he does not want to go to war with Iran, and yet he puts out this thread out there. And maybe it's because he was sitting there thinking, you know what, I need to be tough again. I can't seem like I'm coming across as too sauce. But when you say something like you know, this is going to be the official end of Iran, that's a pretty loaded statement and it actually offends a lot of Iranians, including like ordinary Iranians that the Trump administration says that they want to support. Iran is a civilization that's been around for thousands of years, so saying that you're going to officially end it is is quite the claim. And I think he might have undercut himself with a lot of ordinary Iranians. What started all of these tensions because we heard that there might have been some Americans that were being targeted. That's why the President sent over some bombers and some aircraft carriers to the area. Did all the stem from US being pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal? Yeah, I mean the tensions have really been building up for month to month. The United States pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, imposed a ton of new sanctions, damaging Iran's economy, and then recently the United States, the Trump administration announced it was going to declare a major piece of Iran's military as a terrorist group. Now, the Iranians, you know, they've kind of been still sticking with the nuclear deal, but recently they said they're going to take steps to reduce their commitment to the deal. They also are pretty upset about the terrorist designation of one of their major military units. And so this has just been a situation where now they are apparently making moves that the US fields are threatening, whereas there is also the argument that the US is making moves that the Iranians feel are threatening. And so it's kind of becoming the question of like the chicken or the egg, like which came first, whose threat came first, and which one is going to lead to what? Iranian officials have said that they've quadrupled their uranium enrichment production. Their year ranium that they have would not would still be enriched only to that three point six seven percent limit that was set under the nuclear deal, but they could go beyond their stockpile limitations pretty soon. How does this figure into the whole discussion. What they're hoping to do is they've given the Europeans and other parties to the deal, like Russia and China a couple of months to find ways to ease the economic suffering that they are facing right now as a result of U S sanctions. So they said, look, guys, you need to help us get out of this economic mess, otherwise we're going to start walking away from the deal and enriching uranium and doing these other things that puts them in violation of the deal. Because the way the Iranians look at it is, look, we signed up to this deal saying we would eliminate our nuclear program so that you guys would list economic sanctions that were already on place earlier, and so our economy would improve. And so they just feel like it's become a very one sided deal. And I just don't see how the Europeans are going to be able to pull together anything that helps you run the economy in the next sixty days. I just don't understand how that's going to happen because European up miss cannot force their businesses to do business in Iran, and that's really what it's going to take to help their economy. If the Europeans do come to some sort of deal, some type of agreement, where does the US stand on this. I've seen that they're still threatening to sanction companies that import oil from Iran, things like that. So what is the US going to do it? If they come up with some type of deal. The US is taking a very much like a like a take no prisoner's approach to this thing. The thing that's really interesting about the u S sanctions on Iran is that they target companies and governments elsewhere beyond Iran and beyond the US that do business with Iran, So European companies, Chinese companies, etcetera. They are subject to U S sanctions, meaning they can't access the U S market if they try to do business in Iran. And if the Europeans were to trying some way to get around and I don't know how they're going to manage to do that, especially if they rely on the dollar, as you know, they exchange as the main currency. If if they can do that, if they're going to try, I think the US will have to impose sanctions on some of these European companies or firms, or Chinese or Russian, I should say, and if they don't, if they if the Americans don't do that, then it kind of is like these other countries are calling the United States bluff on sanctions. But I think this administration very much is prepared to issue fines and cut off the US market from some of these foreign companies just to send a message that they should not do business with Iran. How much of all this is bluster? And how serious are these threats? There was a rocket that landed near the U. S. Embassy in Baghdad, and they said that nobody was harmed and was kind of unclear who was behind the attacks. But that's what prompted the President to tweet out for rand wants to fight. That will be their official end. So where are we with this? I mean, you're asking the million dollar questions? How much of this is just a bunch of talk and how much of it is serious willingness to take military action against people organizations that the U. S Think threatens Americans? Because both sides said they don't want where The President has said that, and Iranian officials have said that as well. Well. Yeah, but they east also say, but if the other side does something, you know, we will respond with military force. So the question is who's going to go first and who's gonna try to de escalate this the best. There are efforts, They're talking to other countries, people are trying to quietly mediate and bring people off the cliff a little bit. There are also reports that there were Iranian allied militia groups that announced and said they had nothing to do with the rocket being fired. That might be a sign of them trying to calm down tensions. But yeah, I mean, look, you know, wars can start over any number of things, and this is one of those situations where it could be some low level guy like accidentally firing and gone and you know, next thing, you know, we could have another war. And I think that's what really really worries a lot of people. The last question I have do we have any official communications, back channel communications with Iran? Because the President said I want them to call me so we can negotiate something. Do we have that open line of communication? Well, the Swiss serve as our protecting power in Iran, so they've always been a channel for us to communicate with them. Officially. The Iranians do have an office with the United Nations there's probably ways that we can get information to them, and also it's quite possible all but I don't think they'll admit it. That the CIA probably has some sort of a line to Iranian intelligence that they probably don't want to make public. And that's just my guests, but it's probably a pretty smart guest, you know. But let's be honest to do so much of this is actually being done like in public. It's like, why do you need it? Back to right. That's one of the things that continues to amaze me how a lot of this does play out there and which leads to a lot of misconceptions, a lot of misunderstandings because it is playing out on Twitter instead of these official lines. So well monitor this because I know a lot of people are very concerned. Now, twose foreign affairs correspondent at Politico, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you have a good day. In each state statute and all of them have different varying language. Some of them require and intent to harass the person and others just require that you disseminate a photo where there is an identifiable victim and that one of her intimate parts of explos Joining us now is Dianna Paul, national reporter for the Washington Post and a former sex crimes prosecutor. We're gonna be talking about revenge porn. This has been out there for quite some time now. There's forty five states right now that have revenge porn laws on the books. But there's a certain case in Illinois that's arguing that revenge porn is free speech, and they're saying that the laws there are unconstitutional. It has to do with a woman whose named Bethany Austin. Her and her husband were having a rough time. He was having an affair with the neighbor. She published some photos of her, some nude photos of her, and after that she was arrested. Tell us a little more details of their specific situation and how this relates to the lawsuit that they brought forward. She was in relationships fore and a half years. They were engaged, and she learned about this affair that was going on. They had on in technology and her iPad was linked to the eye cloud that his loose linked to and everyone acknowledges that they knew this at the time, but so she received the conversation sations between her fiance and this neighbor as well as nude photos of the neighbor, and when it came to them deciding to tell all of their family and friends that they were calling off the wedding, he wanted to date that it was mutually agreeable, and she says she wanted to tell them the truth. The fiance then, allegedly, according to the complete, spread rumors about his fiance calling her crazy and saying that she doesn't cook or through house chores, and so that led him speaking at another woman's house and Beth Indian response, she sent a four page letter with attachments of the nude photos as well as the text message conversation to family and friends, and subsequently she was arrested under an Illinois revenge for law also known as non consensual for anatraphy. Now, the question that I have Typically we think of a revenge porn thing. It's a sex stortion type of thing. We're gonna put you in a bind or something, and they put the photos, like on a social media platform something like that. This was a very small occurrence. She sent it to family members basically just saying this is why we're breaking up. It's not like it was disseminated widely. Is that matter at all in this case. It does matter because given each state statute, and all of them have different varying language, some of them require and intend to harass the person, and others just require that you disseminate a photo where there is an identifiable victim and that one of her intimate parts is exposed to Illinois is one of those laws where they're arguing that she in fact did all of the elements that would lead a prosecutor to be able to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt. She didn't necessarily mean it to harass the other woman. It was really to prove her husband wrong. So how is Bethany arguing this that this is free speech? I think I read that her attorney is saying that these nude photos to the husband were a gift and you don't really get a say in what happens to them after that. I mean, is that really the central tenant of what the free speech argument is? The free speech argument comes down to how a court analyzes the situation. And so they can either analyze it by looking at each individual image and determining it on a content based analysis, but that requires a really high level of legal scrutiny and something that's very challenging for a government to show that it was that serious of an interest that they've done it in as a minimal way as possible. The other way a court could analyze it is by looking at the interest that the state has in protecting the privacy of its citizens. And so if a court means toward the first one, it could make it that free speech is protected by the Constitution. But if they look at it the second way, then it's likely that the court follows what other states who have brought this up to court has decided, and that would say that the government has this interest in protecting everybody's privacy, and therefore it's an acceptable restriction on speech. It's such an intimate thing, even though it's so easy to share now, I think for most people, if you're sharing a photo with somebody, a nude, intimate photo like that, the expectation is that you don't want it to be out there. So it's going to be interesting to see how the Illinois Supreme Court will rule on this one. Specifically, how are these revenge board laws doing overall? They're making their way through courts all over the place. In Texas, it's happening in Vermont. There was something that passed. Also, how is this working across the country? Vermont Supreme Court world last year that a sexually explicit image deserved as much privacy as other forms of sensitive information like medical records or financial information. Texas has a case that is currently pending at the state's highest court. We don't know when it's going to be decided. There's no deadlines for that, and there's still different agencies and people filing reefs in the case. And then we have the Illinois case, which they argued last week, and again we don't know when the decision will come down. Dianna Paul, national reporter for The Washington Post, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you so much. You're sharing in theb all of it like it's amazing. It's magic, you know what, I would rather just be amazing. Producer, Miranda, we're gonna touch a little bit on the big event that happened over the weekend. Game of Thrones, the finale, they said an all time record for HBO the ratings. They drew in thirteen point six million viewers for the initial airing of the series finale. But you add in replays. You added early streaming numbers, and that figure climbs to nineteen point three million, their records for Game of Thrones and for HBO also. I mean, it was a huge cultural event almost we're not going to talk about what happened in the show specifically. There was some more flubs, there was water bottles. People weren't happy with the way it ended. You know, there was petitions for rewrites for the season. That's for fans of the show. The broader implications are really how TV has changed. Everybody signaling that this could be the end of appointment TV. This is the last blockbuster TV show of our lifetime. And that's because so many people would gather around that whole notion of water cooler talk. This is something that everybody watched and the next morning they were all talking about it at work. So let's start off with kind of a definition and what is appointment TV? Miranda, Well, I think you're being a little bit fatalistic about it if you agree with that assumption, because appointment TV is just TV shows and programming that you schedule your life around. It doesn't have to be these big, grandiose dramas like Game of Thrones, or the sopranos are breaking bad or mad Men. It can be things like you know, Seinfeld and Friends, the Office. How many people watched Jim and Pam get married. They've been saying that the death of appointment TV is going to happen since when Tevo first came around and it made it so easy to record your shows, fast forward the commercials, or watched them later. So this isn't a new concept of whatever is going to happen next is the death of appointment TV. They said the same thing when Netflix started streaming TV shows and Amazon Prime and all that stuff started happening. And that's the point. Though. Things are changing with the way we consume stuff. Part of it is also that you do have to set your life around the shows and make the time to watch it. Part of it is now with the way we consume it and have social media and everything is the spoilers. If you don't watch something like a Game of Thrones on the night of, by the next morning, it's hitting all the news, it's hitting your social streams, it's your friend text chains are talking about it. I know you had to put your phone away during Game of Thrones on Sunday night I went to screening like a little tiny theater house. It was super cool. But we're in the West Coast. We had to see it at West Coast time at nine pm, so for three hours I had my phone away so that you couldn't see any spoilers. But this is all kind of with factors in now to disappointment TV. Back in the day, there were no spoilers like that, And now if you're not watching it right when something is airing, something as big as like a Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad even when it was going, you run that risk of spoiling everything. And that's what they're saying is significant about Game of Thrones. It launched the same year as Twitter, so people have grown up with this show in an era where live tweeting is common. So you don't necessarily have to do a big watch party with your friends and your family or whatever. You can live watch it with thousands of fans on Twitter and have in time discussions about what's happening, What did you just see? Did you notice that? That kind of stuff. So analysts are saying that it's possible that Game up Phones if it were premiere today, wouldn't have the same cultural impact that it had because of just the timing of it was really lightning in a bottle. Yeah. I mean, do I think it is the end of appointment TV now that Game of Thrones is gone? No? I think there will be some other show that will capture the cultural, big cultural interests of a lot of people, and people will want to watch it together and get those watch parties going. But the way we consume stuff is different now. You know, as a Netflix or Hulu, these streaming services, they release seasons as a whole. It's the whole ten episodes, so you don't get that incremental weekly build up, that excitement, but then you have the two weeks where everyone's talking about and then stranger things are dead to Me, and then it's done. I was in the hair salon on Friday covering my ears because people were talking about that dead to Me show and I haven't seen it yet. That's part of this appointment TV thing. It's changing things. Whereas a week to week incrementalism. You'll watch a show on the streamers, it's a flash in the pan almost and you never know when someone else is watching it. To think of the conversations you have, did you see that game of Thrones episode last night versus have you seen Dead to Me? Or where are you in Dead to Where are you? You never know, you're not watching it in tandem with people a lot of times, or you're just recapping a whole season of something to somebody. The streamers are probably going to have to adjust what they do. There's no reason why Netflix can't drop an episode of Stranger Things over the course of twelve weeks as opposed to one big You know, it takes you a whole weekend to watch, but you're done with it and then it's out of your mind for another three years. People just watch stuff differently. Think about also, if you go home and sometimes you're just not in the mood to pick up a new show or to watch something that's going to be involved with a lot of story elements, like a Game of Thrones. You just want to watch something silly and something that you know. That's why we go back to it all the time, why The Office is the number one streamer for Netflix. It's gonna be interesting to see what that next big show will be. I think there will be one. It might take a few years before it happens, but for now, a lot of people are kind of sad that this is done, and then you you lose that camaraderie with following along with these shows with people. When you think about the end of Game of Thrones, though it's not over, there are at least what is it, eight other Western roast them shows in the pipeline, so they're just trying to capitalize on whatever popularity they can at that point. Thanks Randa, Thanks Oscar. That's it for today. Join us on social media at Daily Dive Pod on Twitter and Daily Dive Podcast on Facebook. Leave us a comment, give us a rating, and tell us the stories that you're interested. Follow us and I Heard Radio, or subscribe wherever you get your podcast. The Daily Dive is produced by Miranda Rendo and engineered by Tony Sargantina. I'm Oscar Ramirez. This was your Daily Dive.
