Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, April 11, 2024

Disney argued Tuesday that it had a First Amendment right to fire Gina Carano, the actor who played a bounty hunter on "The Mandalorian," after she allegedly trivialized the Holocaust in an Instagram post.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Disney also cited two Supreme Court cases " Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston " in which the court held that organizations could not be compelled to associate with supporters of gay rights."

The Boy Scouts defense? Dang.

#1 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-04-11 08:35 AM | Reply

Denying the Holocaust is political speech? Ok, Nazi.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-04-11 10:26 AM | Reply

Are Deplorables seriously trying to tell me that

Loose Lips Pink Slips

Dies not apply in an At Will employment state like California?

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-11 10:38 AM | Reply

Never bothered to look up the exceptions to At Will Employment in California?

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-04-11 11:31 AM | Reply

Disney would probably settle, but Carano is famously difficult to do business with if you believe the Trumper Dana White.

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-04-11 11:32 AM | Reply

... Disney argued Tuesday that it had a First Amendment right to fire Gina Carano, the actor who played a bounty hunter on "The Mandalorian," after she allegedly trivialized the Holocaust in an Instagram post. ...

What does the contract that both parties signed say?


imo, that is all that governs here.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-11 10:05 PM | Reply

Whether she should have been fired for the parts, too me, is a side issue.

She should have been fired because she kinda sucked.

#7 | Posted by RevDarko at 2024-04-11 10:27 PM | Reply

Stupid phone.

Fired for the posts

#8 | Posted by RevDarko at 2024-04-11 10:27 PM | Reply

Dies not apply in an At Will employment state like California?
#3 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Was she actually an employee?

As lamplighter states what does the contract look like?

#9 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-11 10:47 PM | Reply

@#9 ... As lamplighter states what does the contract look like? ...

So... your current alias uses my comment (and, if I may say, without the usual "gaslighter" appellation) when it suits your current alias' purpose?

                                :)





#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-11 11:12 PM | Reply

Freakwater - Little Red Riding Hood
www.youtube.com


A curious (OK, way weird) version of the song.

Gives me the creeps just to watch that video.


#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-11 11:17 PM | Reply

Disney using this as a defend is hilarious.

#12 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-04-12 12:50 AM | Reply

@#12 ... Disney using this as a defend is hilarious....

What is the specific defense Disney is using?

And why is the use of that defense hilarious?

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-12 12:55 AM | Reply

Never bothered to look up the exceptions to At Will Employment in California?

#4 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

None apply

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-04-12 01:47 AM | Reply

Disney using this as a defend is hilarious.

#12 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Jeff once again comes out against free speech he disagrees with.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-04-12 01:47 AM | Reply

It will be interesting as this was a contract and not just employment. As I understand what happened, it was more of a case of she was under contract and they just opted not to use her and shelved her upcoming project. I don't know that they terminated her contract per se but they were clear about what they were doing. Politics aside it should be determined by the contract and I am willing to bet if anyone has clauses for cases like this it is Disney.

#16 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-04-12 09:01 AM | Reply

None apply

#14 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2024-04-12 01:47 AM | FLAG:

We're about to see a bunch of legal arguments that it does.

#17 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-04-12 09:16 AM | Reply

None apply

#14 | Posted by Sycophant

Contractors are not employees per se. Both parties sign a contract and are bound by that contract.

#18 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-04-12 09:46 AM | Reply

Disney using this as a defend is hilarious.

#12 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

People get fired all the time for public conduct.

This is a very high profile person and incident so it's an even easier question to answer.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2024-04-12 09:56 AM | Reply

Disney using this as a defend is hilarious.

#12 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Keep in mind jeff is a freedom of speech absolutist

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-12 10:01 AM | Reply

Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court, decided on June 28, 2000, that held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allowed the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a homosexual person from membership in spite of a state law requiring equal treatment of homosexuals in public accommodations. More generally, the court ruled that a private organization such as the BSA may exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints".[1] In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.[2]

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court regarding free speech rights, specifically the rights of groups to determine what message their activities convey to the public. The Court ruled that private organizations, even if they were planning on and had permits for a public demonstration, were permitted to exclude groups if those groups presented a message contrary to the one the organizing group wanted to convey. Addressing the specific issues of the case, the Court found that private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be presented by their demonstration, even if the intent of the state was to prevent discrimination.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-12 10:26 AM | Reply

The schadenfreude is great, but my inner leftist will NEVER be comfortable seeing huge corporations able to trample on the speech of individuals.

#22 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-04-12 06:25 PM | Reply

What's surprising is Disney distancing themselves from someone who is basically channeling Walt Dinsey's beliefs.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-12 06:29 PM | Reply

Actions have consequences

Personal responsibility and all that stuff

Hilarious indeed

#24 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2024-04-12 09:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort