Disney Cites Supreme Court’s NetChoice Decision In Fighting Gina Carano’s SLAPP Suit
from the making-quick-work-of-it dept
Remember that SLAPP suit, financed by Elon Musk, that actor Gina Carano filed against Disney after they chose not to renew her contract for the Mandalorian? That’s the one where Carano seems to be insisting that failing to renew her contract after she made some controversial political comments is somehow a violation of her First Amendment rights.
The entire lawsuit is a joke, but the two sides have been flinging paperwork back and forth over the last few months. I’d been waiting for the judge to issue some sort of opinion on the pending motion to dismiss, but I spotted one filing by Disney last week that struck me as worth highlighting.
Disney filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority to highlight to the court some of the verbiage in the Supreme Court’s ruling last week in the NetChoice/CCIA cases, regarding whether or not Texas and Florida can pass laws mandating that social media sites must host certain types of political speech.
As Disney points out, the language in the majority opinion seems “relevant” to Disney’s arguments against Carano’s.
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, attached as Exhibit A. The First Amendment analysis in Part III of the Court’s opinion is relevant to the parties’ motion-to-dismiss arguments. In particular, the Supreme Court held:
- That “ordering a party to provide a forum for someone else’s views implicates the First Amendment” if “the regulated party is engaged in its own expressive activity, which the mandated access would alter or disrupt.” Op. 14.
- That “the First Amendment offers protection when an entity engaging in expressive activity, including compiling and curating others’ speech, is directed to accommodate messages it would prefer to exclude,” and that the challenged laws “target[] those expressive choices” by “forcing the [plaintiffs] to present and promote content on their feeds that they regard as objectionable.” Op. 17, 24.
- That none of the analysis “changes just because a compiler includes most items and excludes just a few,” and that “[i]ndeed, that kind of focused editorial choice packs a peculiarly powerful expressive punch.” Op. 18; see Op. 24 (“That those platforms happily convey the lion’s share of posts submitted to them makes no significant First Amendment difference.”
The language quoted above confirms that Disney has a right to exclude speech that alters its expressive activity, that the First Amendment protects its decision to decline to accommodate messages it would prefer to exclude, and that it does not lose its First Amendment right simply because it allowed others’ speech….
I don’t see how any of this should make any difference at all no matter what, but it’s still fascinating to see how the decision is already being cited in situations like this one.
It’s also an example of why, yes, it is important for companies to have First Amendment rights, as it should be helpful towards stopping these sorts of nonsense lawsuits.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, elon musk, free speech, gina carano, slapp, slapp suit
Companies: ccia, disney, netchoice
Comments on “Disney Cites Supreme Court’s NetChoice Decision In Fighting Gina Carano’s SLAPP Suit”
Freedom of speech means freedom from the government. It has nothing to do with others telling you to fuck off because you are an arsehole.
scotus got that part right
IDK how SCOTUS ultimately ruled in that case but its comforting to know that they at least got that bit correct.
Re:
Yes and no. The Supreme Court decision is not unanimous but a majority opinion. That means that it isn’t a robust defense of the Constitution against further political fuckery with its nominations.
Re: Re:
Also, with stare decisis having been discarded, even a unanimous opinion would only go so far in protecting anyone or anything.
The Supreme Court likes to write laws from the bench now. They’re doing a reach around on Congress and the President.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Yet Mark Ruffolo and Pedo Pascal did the EXACT same thing Gina did yet she was fired but they remain employed.
All she’s asking for is consistency.
Re:
Oh I am sorry can you post direct quotes showing that what they posted was in any way the same as what she said? Because I don’t think you can.
Re:
Go ahead. Let’s see all the quotes side-by-side so we can determine how “EXACT” they are the “same.”
Re:
“All she’s asking for is consistency.”
If I look, will I find those words within her complaint/filing?
Re:
One, that’s a lie.
And two, so fucking what? Consistency is not thing in th constitution.
Re:
Consistency is not legally mandated for anything other than protected classes. Political viewpoint is a protected class. Gina is free to call out Disney for doing things she doesn’t like, but cannot use the force of the government against them.
Re: Re:
er… importantly, political viewpoint is NOT a protected class
Re: Re: Re:
Not only that, but people with shitty right-wing political viewpoints don’t seem to be as discriminated against as they seem, telling by the fact that Mel Gibson still has a career…
Re: Re: Re:2
Shitty Kevin Sorbo movies is still better than Carano deserves, frankly.
Re: Re: Re:3
I dunno, I think the God’s Not Dead series would be the perfect fit for her acting.
Re: Re: Re:4
I fell asleep watching Prime and woke up to one of those movies. The acting overall was shite, but the concept was interesting enough I found it a watchable C or D horror movie. I don’t at all dislike Christianity approached properly.
Then the zombie of Kevin Sorbo shuffled onto the screen, and the awful reality of the situation sunk in. I was watching a propaganda piece meant to be taken seriously. It went from a cool conceptual low-budget horror movie to every holy roller that ever wanted me ashamed of myself.
Re:
All she’s asking for is consistency.
What makes you think she’s entitled to it?
Disney is not bound by her subjective personal view of what she said.
Re:
First off: bullshit.
Secondly: so what? In the great land of opportunity you supposedly have in the US, employers don’t have to jump though as many hoops as they do here in the EU. She was given the choice between hate and alienating her employer’s customer base, and she made that choice, as did her employer.
So, are you arguing for the government to come in and mediate free speech, for employers to have no recourse if an employee’s actions are harming their bottom line, or for the end of the right to free association?
Re:
There is.
It’s called…
DISNEY HAS THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE WITH WHOEVER THE FUCK IT WANTS.
Re: Re:
whomever*
Re:
She’s not gonna let you sniff her panties bruh.
I’d really rather not :p
California is an at-will employment state and afaik, there was no contract in place regarding follow on production.
How is the First Amendment going to change this?
Why is this even a question? Any argument for companies not having a First Amendment right will run right smack into critical issue like: Companies can’t talk (or engage in speech). It’s humans that do that.
Another massive issue is:
I could go on. But the whole notation is a bundle of stupid. It fails to make a coherent point, and contradicts the authority it tries to invoke. Anyhow seriously pushing the idea needs to have their teacher help them understand basic logic and think (and maybe the teacher to look at finding medical/mental health resources for them).
And if somehow there is an adult actually pushing the idea, they are either mentally handicapped (… some by their own choice), or lying.
Re:
I just lit my bowl with this 🔥
'Free speech means I can say whatever I want and you can't respond in kind!'
So apparently the republican version of first amendment not only includes consequence-free speech(for certain people anyway), and the right to a platform of your choice even if the owner doesn’t want you there but also the right to force people to continue employing you, even if they don’t want to(though again, only for certain people).
If the republican/conservative definitions of ‘free speech’ and ‘first amendment’ were required to include legal disclaimers they’d have more asterisks than the MASH title…
Re:
And your megaphone is mine. If God had wanted to give heathens a voice, Joshua would not have gotten all the ram’s horns for bringing the walls of Jericho down.
Also, employees have the right to tell their employers that they cannot be fired.
(not)
Wishful thinking is a bitch ain’t it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Incompetent Disney Lawyers....
Ummm they making a motion for dismissal and citing a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court as a reason to dismiss a case before it goes to discovery phase? In fact all the cases they are citing a their “first amendment rights” to attack, smear and fire and employee went past the discovery phase. Also California has very clear strict laws which protect the free speech of employees… and the fact is Gina Carano did nothing wrong, hurtful or harmful to anyone.
Re:
You are wrong on all counts.
Re:
What, you think cases that reach past a certain stage don’t count as precedent?
And there are strict laws that protect the right to free association of employers.
Says you.
Re:
Shes still not gonna let you sniff her panties.
Re:
Yes, that’s how the law works. A defendant can file for dismissal for a multitude of reasons.
Ah, so you don’t know how the law works. Firstly, Disney didn’t smear Gina Carano, they just said that her opinions isn’t something they want to be associated with – if you think that’s a smear that says more about Gina Carano than Disney in this case. Secondly, citing other cases is Disney pointing out: Look, this how these other cases handled these questions raised by the current law-suit so there isn’t really a need for discovery so can we please go directly to dismissal.
Gina Carano wasn’t fired, Disney declined to renew her contract. Do you understand the difference? There’s nothing in CA law that says Disney must renew a contract regardless how strict you think the laws are which you seem to have only a cursory familiarity with. Further, it’s entirely possible that Gina Carano wasn’t directly employed by Disney and instead had her own LOC (Loan Out Company LLC) as a legal middleman which is common in CA and that would make her self-employed – and if that is the case, her law-suit against Disney will go nowhere fast.
Re:
Disney lawyers are a lot of things. “Incompetent” isn’t one of them. We’re not talking about Prenda-level attorneys here—we’re talking about lawyers for one of the most powerful (and litigious) multinational media conglomerates in the world. Don’t fool yourself into thinking they’re “incompetent” because you have a boner for Gina Carano.