SPOILER: The Acolyte -- Disney+ Star Wars -- begins June 5, 2024

[erasure fan1]

There is a contingent that maintains that her firing “is no big deal.”

It might not be. But the fact it has moved forward says there's something to look at. The way Disney handled it was really bad. They didn't just not renew the contract. They made a very public stance against her tweets and that being why she's no longer employed with them. All while conveniently ignoring Pedro's just as problematic tweets. I just can't wait to hear what comes out of this as I'm sure if it goes to the next step we'll get the real info.

Disney fighting it says otherwise. If they were smart they would settle, they still might. If they go to trial? Certainly a risk and an option to do so, but I’m not sure it’s the most optimal move.

It's a tough one. I think settling is the most probable outcome if it goes on too long. The only issue I can see is, settling is basically admitting they did wrong, and Disney might not want that.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

It might not be. But the fact it has moved forward says there's something to look at. The way Disney handled it was really bad. They didn't just not renew the contract. They made a very public stance against her tweets and that being why she's no longer employed with them. All while conveniently ignoring Pedro's just as problematic tweets. I just can't wait to hear what comes out of this as I'm sure if it goes to the next step we'll get the real info.

It's a tough one. I think settling is the most probable outcome if it goes on too long. The only issue I can see is, settling is basically admitting they did wrong, and Disney might not want that.

Settling would be insane because it would result in more lawsuits. Actors are replaced or removed from TV shows all the time. Every actor that guest stars on a show but isn't brought back again will file frivolous lawsuits.

Arguments that she was fired fail to understand how being in a creative role is different from a typical job.

They also argue in their filing why they are allowed to decide on a case by case basis what speech to criticize or disassociate from. By her logic, she can say anything and Disney still has to write her into a TV show. Are we to believe that no one can ever be held accountable for what they say because they declare that statements by other people are equivalent?

“The First Amendment protects Disney’s decision to dissociate itself from some speech but not from other, different speech,” the company’s lawyers wrote. “The First Amendment mandates deference to the speaker’s own decisions about what speech to associate with, even if others might consider those decisions ‘internally inconsistent’… Carano thus cannot stake out a discrimination claim by alleging that Disney accorded different treatment to different statements by different actors.”

 

[erasure fan1]

Settling would be insane because it would result in more lawsuits. Actors are replaced or removed from TV shows all the time. Every actor that guest stars on a show but isn't brought back again will file frivolous lawsuits.

This isn't a case of her part just wasn't coming back. It's about what she said. Disney has made public statements as to why she wasn't brought back and how fundamentally they are against what she said.

They also argue in their filing why they are allowed to decide on a case by case basis what speech to criticize or disassociate from. By her logic, she can say anything and Disney still has to write her into a TV show. Are we to believe that no one can ever be held accountable for what they say because they declare that statements by other people are equivalent?

We'll see I guess. The issue Disney might have is, sure, they decide what speech they can disassociate from. But I'm not sure they can claim they're disassociating from Ginas statements and then not disassociate from Pedro doing the same. If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for both. I've said before, it might not lead to anything. But they are moving to Discovery so there's enough there to need to be looked into. So all the plans are going to come out, maybe Disney covered their butt well enough. But with the information we've scene, Gina has a good argument. Pedros statement was absolutely, 100%, just as problematic as Ginas. Yet his name wasn't pulled through the mud. So it's hard to say anything until we get all the information, which it looks like we should be getting.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

This isn't a case of her part just wasn't coming back. It's about what she said. Disney has made public statements as to why she wasn't brought back and how fundamentally they are against what she said.

We'll see I guess. The issue Disney might have is, sure, they decide what speech they can disassociate from. But I'm not sure they can claim they're disassociating from Ginas statements and then not disassociate from Pedro doing the same. If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for both. I've said before, it might not lead to anything. But they are moving to Discovery so there's enough there to need to be looked into. So all the plans are going to come out, maybe Disney covered their butt well enough. But with the information we've scene, Gina has a good argument. Pedros statement was absolutely, 100%, just as problematic as Ginas. Yet his name wasn't pulled through the mud. So it's hard to say anything until we get all the information, which it looks like we should be getting.

First off, it's not correct to suggest someone else's comments are 100% as bad as hers, as if that's a fact. It's not. It's a subjective opinion.

Second, Disney makes a good argument that it wouldn't matter even if it were somehow factually true. They get to decide which views are out of line by their standards.

They cite specific precedent that organizations cannot be compelled to associate with groups that don't share their values.

 

[C33Mom]

First off, it's not correct to suggest someone else's comments are 100% as bad as hers, as if that's a fact. It's not. It's a subjective opinion.

Second, Disney makes a good argument that it wouldn't matter even if it were somehow factually true. They get to decide which views are out of line by their standards.

They cite specific precedent that organizations cannot be compelled to associate with groups that don't share their values.

I’ve been torn between asking what exactly Pedro said that is the same and not wanting to drag this thread even further off topic— but speaking as a lawyer, I think it would be crazy for Disney to settle. The actress can run up costs (backed by Musk’s money) but the current Supreme Court is going to give broad leeway to corporations to dismiss loudmouth employees with publicly stated views that violate the employers’ values.

 

[Willmark]

This isn't a case of her part just wasn't coming back. It's about what she said. Disney has made public statements as to why she wasn't brought back and how fundamentally they are against what she said.

We'll see I guess. The issue Disney might have is, sure, they decide what speech they can disassociate from. But I'm not sure they can claim they're disassociating from Ginas statements and then not disassociate from Pedro doing the same. If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for both. I've said before, it might not lead to anything. But they are moving to Discovery so there's enough there to need to be looked into. So all the plans are going to come out, maybe Disney covered their butt well enough. But with the information we've scene, Gina has a good argument. Pedros statement was absolutely, 100%, just as problematic as Ginas. Yet his name wasn't pulled through the mud. So it's hard to say anything until we get all the information, which it looks like we should be getting.

From what I’ve seen her lawyers are going to use a state law against Disney:

Mandalorian actor’s lawsuit against Disney invokes unique California law

California Labor Code protects workers’ right to participate in political events outside of work.

www.legaldive.com

How this plays out is anyone’s guess.

I’ll sidestep the whole issue with Pedro but will say it does provide a clear example of Disney’s stance.

How this resolves will certainly be interesting to watch.

 

[CinematicFusion]

Former Star Wars Actress Gina Carano Wins 1st Court Victory Over Disney - Bleeding Fool

Newsbusters announced actress Gina Carano, who’d been fired from the Star Wars-related TV show, The Mandalorian, over her right-wing political views, has had her lawsuit against Disney approved for going forward to court: Disney tried to end actress Gina Carano’s lawsuit against the company...

bleedingfool.com

 

[Phroobar]

All I know is my autographed Cara Dune figure has skyrocketed in value thanks to Disney.

 

[Phroobar]

Heck even David Prowse was barred by George Lucas from ever attending a Star Wars convention because he was upset he didn't get to be Anakin Skywalker in ROTJ. They never made up. Lucas didn't even send condolences when he Prowse died a few years ago.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They cite specific precedent that organizations cannot be compelled to associate with groups that don't share their values.

Something her benefactor is also suing to change.

 

[TsWade2]

My brother hates it. And he blames the DEI wokeness for it. His words, not mine!

 

[easyrowrdw]

From what I’ve seen her lawyers are going to use a state law against Disney:

Mandalorian actor’s lawsuit against Disney invokes unique California law

California Labor Code protects workers’ right to participate in political events outside of work.

www.legaldive.com

How this plays out is anyone’s guess.

Ah, that's interesting. At a federal level, I wouldn't see her having much of a case. I'm not familiar with that California law though.

I don't really care if her character is there or not. As far as I'm concerned, the show has been going downhill ever since they killed the "I have spoken" guy.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Ah, that's interesting. At a federal level, I wouldn't see her having much of a case. I'm not familiar with that California law though.

I don't really care if her character is there or not. As far as I'm concerned, the show has been going downhill ever since they killed the "I have spoken" guy.

The law says that employers cannot have policies “forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office” or “controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.”

She came under fire for ill advised comments that minimized the holocaust and suggesting being hated for one's political views was comparable to that genocide.

Her argument that those comments constituted engaging in politics is a stretch, to put it mildly.

By her logic, linking ones politics to any offensive statement turns it into a "political activity". It would be a free pass to say anything without consequences.

The notion that Disney is required to employ her after those comments is ludicrous.

 

[easyrowrdw]

The law says that employers cannot have policies “forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office” or “controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.”

She came under fire for ill advised comments that minimized the holocaust and suggesting being hated for one's political views was comparable to that genocide.

Her argument that those comments constituted engaging in politics is a stretch, to put it mildly.

By her logic, linking ones politics to any offensive statement turns it into a "political activity". It would be a free pass to say anything without consequences.

The notion that Disney is required to employ her after those comments is ludicrous.

I think you've hit the crux of it. I imagine the context might speak to her intentions/motive, which would help inform the question as well. The law seems vague/broad on its face, but perhaps there's more detail elsewhere that establishes definitions or parameters for the protections. I'll be (mildly) interested to see how it plays out in the courts.

 

[erasure fan1]

She came under fire for ill advised comments that minimized the holocaust and suggesting being hated for one's political views was comparable to that genocide.

Exactly the same as Pedro. That's the issue. You can be mad at Gina for her comments, they were ill advised. My issue has always been, why does Pedro get a pass? Everyone seems to dump on Gina. But yet Pedro can compare half the country as the equivalent to a genocidal maniac because they support a certain candidate. And that is fine? That's the problem and if anyone can't see that, they need to take a step back and reassess.

 

[Willmark]

I think you've hit the crux of it. I imagine the context might speak to her intentions/motive, which would help inform the question as well. The law seems vague/broad on its face, but perhaps there's more detail elsewhere that establishes definitions or parameters for the protections. I'll be (mildly) interested to see how it plays out in the courts.

Discovery is going to be interesting in this case.

 

[Phroobar]

No one should ever get their political views from actors. You know they are being paid for what they say.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Exactly the same as Pedro. That's the issue. You can be mad at Gina for her comments, they were ill advised. My issue has always been, why does Pedro get a pass? Everyone seems to dump on Gina. But yet Pedro can compare half the country as the equivalent to a genocidal maniac because they support a certain candidate. And that is fine? That's the problem and if anyone can't see that, they need to take a step back and reassess.

You don't have to think it's fine. This isn't about what any of us think about various statements, but rather the legal issues at play.

As I pointed out from the legal filings, Disney has demonstrated precedent that states they are allowed to disassociate from someone based on that person's views/statements. Disney gets to decide that based on their own values. It doesn't matter if we disagree with them or find them hypocritical.

It's telling that Disney cited legal decisions about cases featuring conservative organizations.

Disney Argues It Had a First Amendment Right to Fire Gina Carano for Offensive Posts

Disney moved to throw out Gina Carano's lawsuit on Wednesday, arguing it had a First Amendment right to fire her over her offensive posts.

variety.com

 

[MisterPenguin]

Exactly the same as Pedro. That's the issue. You can be mad at Gina for her comments, they were ill advised. My issue has always been, why does Pedro get a pass?

Pedro doesn't. He stopped when asked.

Gina kept going.

Gunn deleted and apologized.

Gina kept going.

 

[erasure fan1]

You don't have to think it's fine. This isn't about what any of us think about various statements, but rather the legal issues at play.

As I pointed out from the legal filings, Disney has demonstrated precedent that states they are allowed to disassociate from someone based on that person's views/statements. Disney gets to decide that based on their own values.

I don't care what side Disney wans to take. Don't mistake what I'm saying as defending Gina. You say they've demonstrated precedent that they can disassociate because of her political views. My question is are they allowed to discriminate against them? Maybe they can, there's a lot of loopholes especially with a big corporation like Disney. Personally I don't think it's as cut and dry as you and others think. Now wether anything comes of it, who knows.

The facts as I can see, until more info comes out in court, is Disney is very much in the wrong. Now did they break the law, maybe, maybe not, neither of us is a lawyer on the case. But there was obviously enough there for them to proceed with the case.

Pedro doesn't. He stopped when asked.

Gina kept going.

Gunn deleted and apologized.

Gina kept going.

I don't remember him apologizing for comparing a certain political backing with slave owners and genocide. He deleted his Twitter if I remember correctly. But he was never put in front of the firing squad like Gina was. And we all know why wether people want to admit it or not, but hey both were in the thick of it.