Gina Carano sues Disney over ‘Mandalorian’ firing

[MightyHypnotic]

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/gin ... rcna137579


By Kalhan Rosenblatt and Diana Dasrath


Actor and former professional MMA fighter Gina Carano has sued The Walt Disney Co. and Lucasfilm over claims she was wrongfully fired from the series “The Mandalorian” in 2021.

In the suit, which was filed Tuesday in federal court in California, Carano alleges she was fired from her role as rebel warrior Cara Dune for voicing right-wing opinions on social media. She is seeking a court order that would require Lucasfilm to reinstate her or compensate her at least $75,000. Carano claims in the suit that she suffered emotional damage and lost millions of dollars in income.

“A short time ago in a galaxy not so far away, Defendants made it clear that only one orthodoxy in thought, speech, or action was acceptable in their empire, and that those who dared to question or failed to fully comply would not be tolerated,” the lawsuit says. “And so it was with Carano.”

X is helping cover the costs of the lawsuit, Carano confirmed Tuesday in a post to the social media platform.

“I would like to express my deepest gratitude & thank you to @ElonMusk & @X for giving me an opportunity to bring my case to light,” she wrote.

In the post, Carano denied that her past posts should be seen as controversial and said she her former employers targeted her as part of a “bullying smear campaign” that was intended to make “an example out of me.”

“The truth is I was being hunted down from everything I posted to every post I liked because I was not in line with the acceptable narrative of the time,” Carano wrote. “My words were consistently twisted to demonize & dehumanize me as an alt right wing extremist.”

[Mr. X]

They can run their company anyway they like. This is a political difference not some race or sex issue. They should also be able to fire Natzees or communists.

Don't buy their product. They're failing anyway.

[cannonfodder]

Didn't her contract end and they exercised their choice to not renew?

[Dazzle1]

She has two contentions

1. Double standards that Pedro Pascal's comments and behavior were accepted

2. Disney caved in to a small group who were upset at Carano, even though the fans were not

At least according to what I heard on Clownfish TV.

Not a lawyer, so don't know if either has cause, but from a business standpoint Disney made the wrong decision to satisfy a tiny intolerant group

[spikeeagle2]

She has two contentions

1. Double standards that Pedro Pascal's comments and behavior were accepted

2. Disney caved in to a small group who were upset at Carano, even though the fans were not

At least according to what I heard on Clownfish TV.

Not a lawyer, so don't know if either has cause, but from a business standpoint Disney made the wrong decision to satisfy a tiny intolerant group

It's different what Pedro did though, he like post that pro-Palestine. He did not comment on any of them (at least not that I know of) execpt call for ceasefire, like any other star, when you have a political comment on something, depends on the company policy, some company does not tolerate expression of political ideology from either side. Then that can be a reason of firing, but that would need to show "clause" (not to be confused to show cause) which mean Disney would need to be able to actively demonstrate they police ideology for both side, otherwise it wouldn't work.

The second point is a non-issue. Because it would normally be up to the executive to have their hand on their administration the way they wanted

Depends on the contract and the by-law, I don't know if Carano have a case, but usually if you need someone to bankroll your lawsuit, that mean you aren't confident about it to begin with.

[sneakly]

Carano's anti-vax, anti-mask stands went against widespread mainstream medical policy and encouraged unsafe practices during a public health crisis that resulted in millions of deaths world wide. Fortunately that is in the rear view mirror for the most part. She had no medical expertise to back what she was saying and I expect Disney has contracts are pretty airtight control of messaging. Whether you agree with the message or not, Disney signs the checks and you agree to their rules. She wasn't campaigning for Trump, she was advocating an unsafe, unproven medical view. If she had been advocating the benefits of recreational psychodelics or Fentanyl, she probably would have been let go also.

[Loki]

Despite Gina Carano's limited acting abilities, I do like the character of Cara Dune. So, I think it's a shame the character will probably never be back. If I were a mediocre actor who somehow got a role on a hit show, I would probably avoid pissing off my employer. That's just me.

[shevek]

I am amazed that MH himself started a thoroughly political thread, but more power to him, and here we are.

I support Gina 100% but this is a publicity stunt. It will work for both Gina and Elon to get them attention. I doubt they will win because as Mr. X said the famous phrase, "A private company can do what it wants". But I hope they do cause Disney as much damage as possible, and yes, please do not buy their products (second-hand or free, that's another story) if you can help it.

Could have been, should have been She-Hulk. She was already Angel Dust in Deadpool, so it's not too late to put her into another tight spandex costume.

This Gina/Elon story will probably dominate the pop culture sphere for a little while (although not as intensely as Amber/Johnny) so let's just sit back and see what develops.

u3oxv5sliik61.jpg (43.67 KiB) Viewed 1636 times

[sneakly]

I am amazed that MH himself started a thoroughly political thread, but more power to him, and here we are.

I support Gina 100% but this is a publicity stunt. It will work for both Gina and Elon to get them attention. I doubt they will win because as Mr. X said the famous phrase, "A private company can do what it wants". But I hope they do cause Disney as much damage as possible, and yes, please do not buy their products (second-hand or free, that's another story) if you can help it.

Could have been, should have been She-Hulk. She was already Angel Dust in Deadpool, so it's not too late to put her into another tight spandex costume.

This Gina/Elon story will probably dominate the pop culture sphere for a little while (although not as intensely as Amber/Johnny) so let's just sit back and see what develops.

u3oxv5sliik61.jpg

I doubt it will cause more than a ripple. She was a minor character in a subscription only show in the pandemic three years ago. Amber was pooping on the bed and accusing a major star of beating her. Trump doesn't even care about Trumpers that ruined their lives for him, so no one is giving her more than a second thought. I will say nothing else about it politically. She foolishly burned her own bridge.

[Visitor]

There have been plenty of other actors fired from shows over what they have said and posted. Mel Gibson is the most famous actor that had trouble. So she won't find much sympathy from a jury unless she can get the case in a heavily Republican court.

Musk isa lady getting flack since the original post was on Instagram and not his X. It's just another example of his free speech only when he agreed with the content.

[Dogfish]

I'm really disappointed that she's such a dickhead because I really like how she's put together. You don't get many women like that these days (honourable mention for Frankie Adams who played Bobbie Draper in The Expanse). She could have really carved a niche for herself in a world where there are plenty of action roles for women, way more than any time before, but she couldn't keep a lid on the stupid.

Maybe she's just punch drunk because a lot of MMA fighters and connected people seem to come out with some proper brain damaged takes.

Either way, Disney doesn't owe her a job.

[Dazzle1]

She has two contentions

1. Double standards that Pedro Pascal's comments and behavior were accepted

2. Disney caved in to a small group who were upset at Carano, even though the fans were not

At least according to what I heard on Clownfish TV.

Not a lawyer, so don't know if either has cause, but from a business standpoint Disney made the wrong decision to satisfy a tiny intolerant group

It's different what Pedro did though, he like post that pro-Palestine. He did not comment on any of them (at least not that I know of) execpt call for ceasefire, like any other star, when you have a political comment on something, depends on the company policy, some company does not tolerate expression of political ideology from either side. Then that can be a reason of firing, but that would need to show "clause" (not to be confused to show cause) which mean Disney would need to be able to actively demonstrate they police ideology for both side, otherwise it wouldn't work.

The second point is a non-issue. Because it would normally be up to the executive to have their hand on their administration the way they wanted

Depends on the contract and the by-law, I don't know if Carano have a case, but usually if you need someone to bankroll your lawsuit, that mean you aren't confident about it to begin with.

Sorry to all, but I have to say liking a pro terorist post should be cause for firing

[Mr. X]

She sued, that means she'll probably never work again unless its some Ben Shapiro production. Same happened to Scarlett. No one will touch her now. Disney can hire who they like. If they want to keep pro-X people and dump pro-Y people that's their business. Maybe she knew she'd get booted anyway so she's trying to stay relevant.

They're collapsing anyway. There's been talks of split ups and buy outs. Star Wars is basically a dead franchise.

[bushwackerbob]

The key for me is whether Gina Carano was still under contract when they decided to fire her. If there was no contract, then Disney is well within their rights not to retain Carano for the role. When there is no binding contract, or if the employment status is up for renewal, that said employee must depend upon the goodwill and judgement of the employer as to whether they maintain that job or role. In a sense, aspects such as fairness, free speech, double standards, and cancel culture are irrelevant to this discussion, it's Disney's call on Carano, regardless of whether we think that is right or wrong. Just my take.

[Dazzle1]

The key for me is whether Gina Carano was still under contract when they decided to fire her. If there was no contract, then Disney is well within their rights not to retain Carano for the role. When there is no binding contract, or if the employment status is up for renewal, that said employee must depend upon the goodwill and judgement of the employer as to whether they maintain that job or role. In a sense, aspects such as fairness, free speech, double standards, and cancel culture are irrelevant to this discussion, it's Disney's call on Carano, regardless of whether we think that is right or wrong. Just my take.

No doubt, but lets not pretend that Disney did not cave to a small group and that more Mandalorian fans wanted Carano kept

[shevek]

No doubt, but lets not pretend that Disney did not cave to a small group and that more Mandalorian fans wanted Carano kept

Not just 'more'. WAY MORE. The number of those who complained were infinitesimal compared to the supporters.

She has more followers on social media than she did when she was with Disney:
1.3 M Twitter, 1.8 M Instagram, 2M Facebook.

and since then she's only done indie productions and Comicons. If she were to enter another major franchise, a fanbase would follow her.
Her supporters are the ones who spend the money, not the detractors.

I think it's inspiring that she shows a sense of loyalty and gratitude for those who have supported her. In this Instagram summarizing Megacon,
she includes photos with Jeremy Griggs, Eric July, Drunk 3PO, and Nerdrotic, as well as many loyal fans (see the fan art!).

She knows who has her back!

[MightyHypnotic]

I am amazed that MH himself started a thoroughly political thread, but more power to him, and here we are.

I support Gina 100% but this is a publicity stunt. It will work for both Gina and Elon to get them attention. I doubt they will win because as Mr. X said the famous phrase, "A private company can do what it wants". But I hope they do cause Disney as much damage as possible, and yes, please do not buy their products (second-hand or free, that's another story) if you can help it.

Could have been, should have been She-Hulk. She was already Angel Dust in Deadpool, so it's not too late to put her into another tight spandex costume.

This Gina/Elon story will probably dominate the pop culture sphere for a little while (although not as intensely as Amber/Johnny) so let's just sit back and see what develops.

u3oxv5sliik61.jpg

Not political at all. Just interesting news about someone who has played superheroine type roles.

[bushwackerbob]

The key for me is whether Gina Carano was still under contract when they decided to fire her. If there was no contract, then Disney is well within their rights not to retain Carano for the role. When there is no binding contract, or if the employment status is up for renewal, that said employee must depend upon the goodwill and judgement of the employer as to whether they maintain that job or role. In a sense, aspects such as fairness, free speech, double standards, and cancel culture are irrelevant to this discussion, it's Disney's call on Carano, regardless of whether we think that is right or wrong. Just my take.

No doubt, but lets not pretend that Disney did not cave to a small group and that more Mandalorian fans wanted Carano kept

I agree with you 100%. They don't call social media the echo chamber for nothing.

[sneakly]

Who is GC's core audience? There are the ones that followed her as a MMA star. But as an actress? It is going to be kids watching shows on Disney. Disney's job is to engage those kids (and their parents). Hanna Montana burned her bridges as child actress so she could have an adult career as Miley Cyrus. GC want's to have an acting career outside of MMA, she needs to find a new fan base, because a couple of years outside the ring and no one will remember her as a fighter.

GC was caught up in a political moment and got herself burned. If she was a doctor or a nurse or an epidemiologist, she might have gotten away with those opinions (although they were not what mainstream medicine and science were saying, and if she had any expertise, she would not have bought into the anti-vax claptrap). She was an actress, vocally passing along bolsch medical claims that parent company knew was incorrect and medically wrong. Disney has all sorts of clauses in it's contracts about actors behavior off screen. they sell a family product. Cruella DeVille can't smoke anymore, Tim Allen had to get a waver to be Santa Claus (he has a prison record). Johnny Depp had to win a defamation suit to stay Jack Sparrow. Disney has a whole congo line of actors that were fired for domestic abuse, assault and DUIs.

She was saying stuff that was wrong because she bought into a current political thread. If she started talking about replacement theories of George Soros running the world, she would have gotten canned, also. That they can say it on Fox doesn't make it acceptable on Disney. You see the same thing with people on the left and support for Hamas. There are idiots that open their mouths and say dumb things and get smacked for it. Especially if you work for a company that makes children's content.

[shevek]

GC was caught up in a political moment and got herself burned.

I don't think anyone on this forum disagrees with that.

Her lawsuit, however, goes to the core of whether Disney's heavy hand was applied equally. I don't know if she can do it, but she is trying to prove that the male actors got a lot more free passes from Disney than she did. For example, Pedro Pascal took a clear stance on Gaza (and I think there's a reason why he did that: Chile is the largest home of Palestinians in exile in the world, so he was playing to his core fanbase). Jonathan Majors committed an assault but wasn't officially canned until he was convicted. I don't know the whole list but I'm sure she and Elon are going down the litany with a fine-toothed comb.

And what she is doing, is trying to use Disney's supposed pro-female stance against them. That is to say, Disney claims to take a pro-active effort to foreground women in the company, feature them as star characters in the productions, and champion their cause. All of that was according to both Kathleen Kennedy ("The Force is Female") and Victoria Alonso. In fact, Alonso was fired by Disney recently, but only after the company produced a large settlement for her.

Carano got no such settlement, to my knowledge. The lawsuit claims that Disney goes out of its way to support women as a protected class but only in so far as they express the correct political doctrines. This may or may not fly in court (and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't, because a 'private company can do what it wants') but her argument in the suit is that there was sex-based discrimination, not just being 'burned' politically.

So, we'll see.

[sneakly]

This why lawyers get paid. GC wasn't an executive, she was basically doing piece work. If a character doesn't work (looking at you Jar-Jar) they are under no obligation to continue using it. They may have to pay off the actor for the balance of their contract (looking at you Amber), but they don't have an obligation outside the contract. The Palestinian situation is more complex because the Palestinians, aside from the terrorists associated with them, have been a people that have suffered and continue to suffer. There are two sides to that conversation. As long as you are not condoning terrorism, there is real suffering occurring in Gaza by real civilians.

Regardless, of your personal feelings, if someone's mother, sister or bother lived in Gaza, I wouldn't expect you to support the aerial bombardment of the Strip. This may give Pascal more leeway in his opinions. GC was simply wrong spreading incorrect medical advice (I don't remember if she was supporting the election lies or not and I am not going to bother to look it up). Pascal may have also gotten a dressing down for public statements that we are simply unaware of. He is a lead in the show and not a supporting character that is easily replaced, so he is not going to be held to the same standard. In someways higher.

The whole thing is probalby much more nuanced and we will have to see what comes out. I doubt Disney handed her a contract that would make winning a case easy.

[Mr. X]

GC was simply wrong spreading incorrect medical advice

Even though Disney can do as they like someone saying some medical advice happens all the time. Countless celebs endorse diets etc or old people cures or supplements. And its not like the mainstream info was correct about the virus. One could easily claim lame celeb advice could risk someone's life.

Rosy O'Donnel for example is a huge 911 conspiracy person. She promoted that all the time on the View. I believe Jim Carey is a huge anti-vax person.
https://www.thecut.com/2022/02/anti-vax ... dwork.html
Lots of black celebrities were anti-vax.

So not sure Disney's reasoning. Doesn't matter. Disney is dying, star wars is a dead franchise.

I think the reason we see hostility toward fan bases is the zero interest rate world. When your company doesn't have to make money and can just keep borrowing money to stay a float you can do weird things like attack your own customer base. But that world ended and now companies have to make things that make money again instead of giant lab experiments that don't work.

[Mr. X]

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... el-847779/
More anti-vax celebs

[shevek]

There are two sides to that conversation.

Regardless, of your personal feelings, if someone's mother, sister or bother lived in Gaza, I wouldn't expect you to support the aerial bombardment of the Strip. This may give Pascal more leeway in his opinions. GC was simply wrong spreading incorrect medical advice (I don't remember if she was supporting the election lies or not and I am not going to bother to look it up). Pascal may have also gotten a dressing down for public statements that we are simply unaware of. He is a lead in the show and not a supporting character that is easily replaced, so he is not going to be held to the same standard. In someways higher.

The whole thing is probalby much more nuanced and we will have to see what comes out. I doubt Disney handed her a contract that would make winning a case easy.

I, too, believe that she will probably not win her case, unless something was found in the contract that hasn't come to light. But Disney lawyers are very smart and competent, I'm sure. (And unless they had a specific diversity push in that department, as well, largely still white and male I would imagine. It'd be interesting to know.)

I might be wrong but Pascal does not seem to have relatives or friends in Gaza, and it actually took him a while to even speak out because his agency CAA put a lid on anti-Israel statements early on.

The Pascal rationale seems to be this: 1) his parents were political refugees, 2) his family has long been associated with the liberal and/or revolutionary left, 3) there are a half million Palestinians in Chile. So he leans in that direction, while Gina seems to lean opposite. They worked together, and he at most got a private dressing-down (that we're not even sure of), while she got offered a 'struggle session' on Zoom with 40 LGBT advocates.

There are two sides to EVERY conversation. That's why it's called a conversation, and not a dictation. Even the Axis Powers were a 'side', whether you agree with them or not, and millions supported them. BILLIONS today support political and religious views with which you would certainly not agree, but the moment you have a 'conversation' with them about it, there would be two sides.

There was a conversation about how to deal with the virus and where it came from (two sides). As Mr. X mentions above, there were plenty of other celebrities on the anti-vax side. There was a conversation about politics in the US which was seriously impeded by government interference in social media (and this has since been proven).

With said political conversation being censored and impeded, Gina compared the situation to Nazi Germany. The comparison was heavy handed but not unwarranted, considering the phenomenon where many people who call themselves Anti-Fascist and Anti-Racist actually commit what could be considered Fascist actions (violence, repression, censorship) and advocated Racist principles (both de facto and de jure discrimination, hatred based on identity). That's the situation within which Gina made her post.

I guess now we're getting political, but I'm just explaining why Gina said what she did. And no, she did not deny the election results.

So yes, there's lots of nuance, and I'm glad you're on board with things not being so cut and dry. We'll see how it shakes out.

[sneakly]

Gina wasn't censored. Gov'ts censor. Private entities have the right to free association and I am sure Disney makes it clear in their contracts that they can fire you for your public statements
https://www.buzzfeed.com/abhaahad/celeb ... -by-disney

[Mr. X]

Gina wasn't censored. Gov'ts censor. Private entities have the right to free association and I am sure Disney makes it clear in their contracts that they can fire you for your public statements
https://www.buzzfeed.com/abhaahad/celeb ... -by-disney

Yes you represent the company especially if you're an actor.

[Dazzle1]

There are two sides to that conversation.

Regardless, of your personal feelings, if someone's mother, sister or bother lived in Gaza, I wouldn't expect you to support the aerial bombardment of the Strip. This may give Pascal more leeway in his opinions. GC was simply wrong spreading incorrect medical advice (I don't remember if she was supporting the election lies or not and I am not going to bother to look it up). Pascal may have also gotten a dressing down for public statements that we are simply unaware of. He is a lead in the show and not a supporting character that is easily replaced, so he is not going to be held to the same standard. In someways higher.

The whole thing is probalby much more nuanced and we will have to see what comes out. I doubt Disney handed her a contract that would make winning a case easy.

I, too, believe that she will probably not win her case, unless something was found in the contract that hasn't come to light. But Disney lawyers are very smart and competent, I'm sure. (And unless they had a specific diversity push in that department, as well, largely still white and male I would imagine. It'd be interesting to know.)

I might be wrong but Pascal does not seem to have relatives or friends in Gaza, and it actually took him a while to even speak out because his agency CAA put a lid on anti-Israel statements early on.

The Pascal rationale seems to be this: 1) his parents were political refugees, 2) his family has long been associated with the liberal and/or revolutionary left, 3) there are a half million Palestinians in Chile. So he leans in that direction, while Gina seems to lean opposite. They worked together, and he at most got a private dressing-down (that we're not even sure of), while she got offered a 'struggle session' on Zoom with 40 LGBT advocates.

There are two sides to EVERY conversation. That's why it's called a conversation, and not a dictation. Even the Axis Powers were a 'side', whether you agree with them or not, and millions supported them. BILLIONS today support political and religious views with which you would certainly not agree, but the moment you have a 'conversation' with them about it, there would be two sides.

There was a conversation about how to deal with the virus and where it came from (two sides). As Mr. X mentions above, there were plenty of other celebrities on the anti-vax side. There was a conversation about politics in the US which was seriously impeded by government interference in social media (and this has since been proven).

With said political conversation being censored and impeded, Gina compared the situation to Nazi Germany. The comparison was heavy handed but not unwarranted, considering the phenomenon where many people who call themselves Anti-Fascist and Anti-Racist actually commit what could be considered Fascist actions (violence, repression, censorship) and advocated Racist principles (both de facto and de jure discrimination, hatred based on identity). That's the situation within which Gina made her post.

I guess now we're getting political, but I'm just explaining why Gina said what she did. And no, she did not deny the election results.

So yes, there's lots of nuance, and I'm glad you're on board with things not being so cut and dry. We'll see how it shakes out.

Pascal gets a ass because anti-Semitism gets a pass. Let compare Emma Watson's support of Hamas vs JK Rowling's views on gender or that Roger Waters has not been blacklisted even though the rest of Pink Floyd has dennounced his racism towards Jews

[shevek]

Gina wasn't censored. Gov'ts censor. Private entities have the right to free association and I am sure Disney makes it clear in their contracts that they can fire you for your public statements
https://www.buzzfeed.com/abhaahad/celeb ... -by-disney

Not true. Please read actual definitions in the dictionary.

Oxford: "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

You stand corrected.

Government and private corporations **collaborating** to impose a totalitarian level of control already has a name, which it's had since the 40s.
It's called "fascism". That's what has been happening. See the Twitter files. Govt agencies told Twitter what to censor and they censored it.

Private companies, nonprofits and universities also censor all the time. It just so happens that formerly, these organizations used to control information based on what was best for the company and what would make the most money.

Now, they often censor on behalf of one single monolithic (yet ever-shifting) narrative, which often literally *loses money*.
Because the point is no longer to make a profit - the point is to keep receiving financial support from elite sources.

The censors get trained in the universities and then they spread out to every possible institution in the United States. It's called The Long March, and Bezmenov warned us about it.

[five_red]

Gina wasn't censored. Gov'ts censor. Private entities have the right to free association and I am sure Disney makes it clear in their contracts that they can fire you for your public statements
https://www.buzzfeed.com/abhaahad/celeb ... -by-disney

Not true. Please read actual definitions in the dictionary.

Oxford: "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

You stand corrected.

At no point did Disney suppress Gina's speech or public communication. She had the same freedom of communication after she was fired as before.

Gina had the right to resign if she objected to Disney's publicly stated political positions. Disney had the right to release her if they objected to her publicly stated political positions. The two have a contract, and providing the contract is fair and any actions are done in accordance with the contract, there's not much more to be said.


R5

[bushwackerbob]

Gina wasn't censored. Gov'ts censor. Private entities have the right to free association and I am sure Disney makes it clear in their contracts that they can fire you for your public statements
https://www.buzzfeed.com/abhaahad/celeb ... -by-disney

Not true. Please read actual definitions in the dictionary.

Oxford: "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

You stand corrected.

At no point did Disney suppress Gina's speech or public communication. She had the same freedom of communication after she was fired as before.

Gina had the right to resign if she objected to Disney's publicly stated political positions. Disney had the right to release her if they objected to her publicly stated political positions. The two have a contract, and providing the contract is fair and any actions are done in accordance with the contract, there's not much more to be said.


R5

I agree. I would also say that freedom of speech is really not about a company and an employer, it is in theory and practice supposed to be about the government restricting or banning speech for any of its citizens.

[sneakly]

Gina wasn't censored. Gov'ts censor. Private entities have the right to free association and I am sure Disney makes it clear in their contracts that they can fire you for your public statements
https://www.buzzfeed.com/abhaahad/celeb ... -by-disney

Not true. Please read actual definitions in the dictionary.

Oxford: "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

You stand corrected.

Government and private corporations **collaborating** to impose a totalitarian level of control already has a name, which it's had since the 40s.
It's called "fascism". That's what has been happening. See the Twitter files. Govt agencies told Twitter what to censor and they censored it.

Private companies, nonprofits and universities also censor all the time. It just so happens that formerly, these organizations used to control information based on what was best for the company and what would make the most money.

Now, they often censor on behalf of one single monolithic (yet ever-shifting) narrative, which often literally *loses money*.
Because the point is no longer to make a profit - the point is to keep receiving financial support from elite sources.

The censors get trained in the universities and then they spread out to every possible institution in the United States. It's called The Long March, and Bezmenov warned us about it.

Go to work and tell your customers to fuck off. Tell your boss to fuck off. You have every right to say it, but that right does not shield you from it's consequences. If you violate the terms of Service of any media platform, including Truth Social and the Elon Musk liberated X, you will get the boot. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Gina won't go to jail, that is all the First Amendment guarantees. It does not protect her job or her ability to make a living.

[shevek]

I agree with everything Sneakly, Red5 and Bushwacker have said above, except for the incorrect definition of censorship.

Censorship can be any abrogation of speech and expression done by anyone to anyone. Sometimes it's totally justified, like if you tell your kid
not to swear at the cashier in the supermarket. Also maybe you don't want a third grader to see naked pictures in a library.

This doesn't have to do with freedom of speech. And yes, consequences always exist, and as long as the consequences are legal (like for example, hitting Andy Ngo in the face with a milkshake is not legal) they are totally within bounds.

This has to do with whether the company treated one person differently than they did a bunch of others. Gina's suit is based on elements of discrimination. You're right in that her case is probably not strong enough.

Again, the suit is for recognition of the issue and for publicity.

[Mr. X]

There was another period in which this stuff happened - when the religious right controlled everything and booted people for ideas. The left's response (speaking as an old lefty) was to fight this, call it out, say it was unfair. That you shouldn't have to pass a McCarthy purity test to work somewhere.

Now we deal with the same issue only different actors.

[five_red]

There was another period in which this stuff happened - when the religious right controlled everything and booted people for ideas. The left's response (speaking as an old lefty) was to fight this, call it out, say it was unfair. That you shouldn't have to pass a McCarthy purity test to work somewhere.

Now we deal with the same issue only different actors.

I'd agree, only now I'd say it was more actors, not different. I think that the censorious thinking that used to predominantly be reserved for the conservatives has now bleed to liberals, meanwhile the right has shifted to somewhere far more dark and crazy. To be fair, there was always some degree of dogma in classic Western liberalism -- there were always people who insisted on judging people by some loyalty or purity test -- but liberals were better at calling it out and questioning it. Conservatives traditionally seemed more comfortable with loyalty and purity tests. Conservatives always seemed better at rallying around a cause and speaking/acting with a single unified voice. Liberals often liked to debate every side of an issue, which diluted their effectiveness because getting them to act was like herding cats.

Today, however, things are different.

If you take America as the most extreme example. Sixty years ago... Liberals (Democrats) were lukewarm at best on race relations (a lot of the Democratic politicians in southern states were openly racist and ran on segregationist agendas), suspicious of the military and foreign wars, slightly sympathetic towards certain Communist states (like Cuba), and largely ambivalent when it came to women's rights and abortion. Conservatives (Republicans), meanwhile, were more supportive of race relations (Lincoln, a Republican, had freed the slaves!), welcoming of foreign wars and the military solutions, vehemently against all Communist states, and mostly supportive of abortion (both Ronald Reagan and Billy Graham supported Roe vs. Wade -- prior to the 1970s it was only Catholics that opposed abortion.) Today... everything today has shifted rightward. So the Democrats have moved from left-of-centre to right-of-centre; they are now heavily support groups like Black Lives Matter, advocate for foreign wars in places like Ukraine and support the military, oppose Russia's attempts to reclaim the territories of the former Soviet Union, and support abortion and women's reproductive rights. Republicans have shifted from a right-of-centre position towards a far-right position. Their positions on race and women's rights are informed more by religious fundamentalism and appeals to those southerners who used to have a home in the old Democrat party, they no longer want America to be a global actor but to withdraw from the world into a 'country first' philosophy, and they openly admire strong-man totalitarian regimes around the world regardless of whether they are far left or far right.

The centre ground shifted rightward. (Which is why it is amusing to hear conservatives complain about woke bleeding-heart Democrats -- those woke Democrats occupy the same political ground that used to be where the Republicans lived as recently as the 1950s and 60s.) And I think a lot of the pragmatism of old classical liberal thinking has given way to more dogmatic thinking, with more acceptance of witch hunts and censorship, and less push back against those tactics. Meanwhile the conservatives seem to have drifted into an almost cult-like position, where total loyalty to a charismatic strong man is valued above all else (Donald Trump, Boris Johnson...), even if it means tying yourself in political knots and shooting your cause in the foot (like voting against a border/immigration bill that is overwhelmingly stacked in your favour, simply because the Dear Leader has pronounced it so..!) Dissension in the modern conservative America isn't just met with censorship, it is punished with doxing, death threats and intimidation.

So, yeah, there doesn't appear to be room any more for that oft-quoted Evelyn Beatrice Hall sentiment: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It seems the modern liberal movement seems to favour "I disapprove of what you say, and I'll get you fired if you say it", while the modern conservative movement seems to favour "The Dear Leader disapproves of what you say, so expect a visit from people with assault rifles pretty soon."

It is a shame that Disney didn't "defend to the death Gina's right to say" what she did, but that's just the way things work at the moment. Disney didn't violate Gina's free speech rights, but it's a pity she couldn't say it without getting fired -- what she said was grossly ignorant and disrespectful, but she wasn't threatening anyone or advocating violence. However, I guess Gina can be thankful her only punishment was losing a job. People who speak out against the Republicans' current messiah frequently have their details doxed online, armed individuals forcing their way into their home (as happened to numerous election workers), family members attacked (as happened with Paul Pelosi), etc etc. Say what you will about bleeding-heart woke virtue-signalling snowflake liberals, but their Twitter mobs tend to stay on Twitter.


R5

[sneakly]

I wouldn't take America as a particularly extreme example. WWII era Japan and Germany were incredibly xenophobic. Stalin, Pol Pot Any leader of N Korea are way more extreme. Most western democracies have an extreme left and an extreme right.

During the Pandemic, there was a portion of government that thought they should play public health for political points. And they got a lot of traction. The US ended up with by far the highest body count of any modern Western first world country. If Trump had more spine and said this is something we need to do, some of the craziness might have been avoided. But he kept giving oxygen to the crazies. Within an couple of months of the Vaccine being released, most of the deaths were amongst people who didn't want to take it. By then there was a media ecosystem that was feeding it. Fox News actually was more strict about masks and vaccines than the US Department of health. At the same time, Fox was encouraging dangerous behavior for ratings.

Gina was sucked into that. Disney, as a corporation, did not want to feed into that. Imagine a TV personality encouraging children to jump out of windows or start fires or play with guns. What she was saying was not a benign difference of opinion. Real people died because they thought masks were ineffective, or dangerous and that vaccines were more dangerous than Covid. It wasn't about whether trans kids should be on a swim team.

She didn't know what she was talking about and she was repeating falsehoods and people died or were permanently injured believing it.

They didn't deny her the right to speak, but they were under no obligation to put the Mickey Seal of Approval on it.

[Visitor]

Imagine a TV personality encouraging children to jump out of windows or start fires or play with guns.

Soupy Sales at the end of his show as filler asked children to send him money. Hw got in trouble for it.

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/soupy-s ... -day-joke/

[five_red]

I wouldn't take America as a particularly extreme example. WWII era Japan and Germany were incredibly xenophobic. Stalin, Pol Pot Any leader of N Korea are way more extreme. Most western democracies have an extreme left and an extreme right.

[ Snipped... ]

I think it is a fair point to correct me on America not being a particularly extreme example. There are, unfortunately, plenty of examples of right wing political movements around the world increasingly being infected by conspiracy theories and strong-man cults. There's even evidence of them copying each other. Trump's ongoing 'stop the steal' lie that aims to get voters to mistrust democratic systems is now being trialed by other wannabe dictators, including in Erdogan in Turkey. The Left, meanwhile, have shifted to occupy much of the ground that Right used to occupy a few decades ago. Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair shifted the British Labour Party from heavily left leaning (although never far left) in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, to a centrist slightly-left party from the 1990s on. Bill Clinton is probably the main reason that the Democrats shifted from a left-of-center to right-of-center in the USA. Both of these changes happened in reaction to strong confident conservative movements in the UK and US headed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. These conservative moments saw the end of Keynesian Economics, replaced by Free Market (Trickle Down) Economics, which was great for the Stock Market, but massively enormously vastly widened the gap between the richest and poorest in society.

In times of great economic division it is usually the Left that benefits. But the liberals had already moved onto the centre ground to appeal to the college educated classes, and were pushing tepid versions of Thatcherite/Reaganite economic policies. The Left even became ashamed to use the word "socialism", allowing the Right to redefine the word to be the same as "communism". So no matter who people voted for -- Labour/Conservative, Democrat/Republican -- the gap between rich and poor expanded. The only difference between the Left and Right was how rapidly it expanded. The poor and economically disaffected decided to align themselves with the Right, buying the Right's argument that their woes were a result of liberals not being hard-core enough about Trickle Down tax cuts for the wealthy. But after decades of this, the gap continued to grow and grow and grow, and liberals were too frightened to suggest the obvious solution ("democratic socialism" -- evil evil evil!!!) So there was no way to address the problem.

The disaffected masses were wide open to suggestions that the reason they weren't benefiting from economic growth like previous generations was because of a deep-state cabal who were conspiring to oppress the masses. This conspiracy wanted to control the population, to keep the masses poor and needy. Politics was nothing more than a shame, a fiction created to hide the truth from the masses. The cabal wanted to pump vaccines into your arm, rig your elections, brainwash your children, and gobble up as much of the wealth as possible. But ironically anyone who suggested a return to the socialist policies that had been so successful in raising up the wealth of the masses from the 1920s to the 1960s was shouted down as a pinko commie bastard. (These policies actually created the modern consumerism free-market society by giving the average worker disposable income. Prior to this 95% of workers were too poor to be 'consumers'. But they'd admittedly failed miserably in the 1970s when that same free-market was undermined by a global economic crisis fueled (pun!) by oil prices. That massive failure gave Reagan and Thatcher the opportunity to push their anti-socialism economic theories which addressed the immediate problems in the 1970s, but widened the gap between rich and poor as they continued to run.)

When liberals demanded the firing of Gina Carano, it only serves to fuel the conspiracy thinking on the Right. In the world of conspiracies Gina's firing wasn't merely a company (Disney) trying to protect its reputation with large and important parts of its audience (the young and LGBTQ community)... no... Gina's firing was part of a liberal plot to censor everything, backed by George Soros! When Twitter banned hate speech it wasn't merely a company removing content that might encourage violence... no... it was a liberal plot to suppress resistance to the deep state and take away everyone's guns, backed by George Soros! When 'Big Tech' (a secret cabal within the secret cabal) blocked vaccine misinformation, it wasn't because it wanted to save lives... no... it was a liberal plot to monitor and control the masses by injecting them with experimental drugs and microchips, backed by George Soros!

So the firing of Carano really doesn't help things, because it only drives the Right further into their conspiracies. I agreed with the blocking of vaccine and COVID misinformation -- because (as noted) this misinformation does kill people -- but I'm also aware that censoring such information massively contributed to expanding and strengthening the reach of conspiratorial thinking. Solutions like this helped to drive more and more people into the welcoming arms of QAnon, et al.

What history tells us is that economic inequality tends to cause extremist politics and civil discourse. The fractious state of the debate we are now dealing with is likely being caused by people's genuine anger/fear at being left behind. If you want a world in which Gina Carano isn't hounded on Twitter for uttering a few deeply ignorant (although not violent) statements, and election workers aren't resigning in droves because of death threats, you need to reduce the wealth gap in your society and ensure economic growth works for everyone and not just the powerful. But the Left is now camped in the spot previously occupied by the Right, and are too terrified to return to their socialist roots for fear of being branded "pinko commie bastards", and the Right are now off on a whole wacky journey diving down rabbit-hole after rabbit-hole, chasing every crazy idea about FBI false-flag operations and microchips in vaccines and bamboo ballots and the ghost of dead Venezuelan leaders reprogramming voting machines. Oh, and the Jews (including George Soros) want to steal your gas cookers.

So don't expect any change soon...

R5

[bushwackerbob]

I wouldn't take America as a particularly extreme example. WWII era Japan and Germany were incredibly xenophobic. Stalin, Pol Pot Any leader of N Korea are way more extreme. Most western democracies have an extreme left and an extreme right.

[ Snipped... ]

I think it is a fair point to correct me on America not being a particularly extreme example. There are, unfortunately, plenty of examples of right wing political movements around the world increasingly being infected by conspiracy theories and strong-man cults. There's even evidence of them copying each other. Trump's ongoing 'stop the steal' lie that aims to get voters to mistrust democratic systems is now being trialed by other wannabe dictators, including in Erdogan in Turkey. The Left, meanwhile, have shifted to occupy much of the ground that Right used to occupy a few decades ago. Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair shifted the British Labour Party from heavily left leaning (although never far left) in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, to a centrist slightly-left party from the 1990s on. Bill Clinton is probably the main reason that the Democrats shifted from a left-of-center to right-of-center in the USA. Both of these changes happened in reaction to strong confident conservative movements in the UK and US headed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. These conservative moments saw the end of Keynesian Economics, replaced by Free Market (Trickle Down) Economics, which was great for the Stock Market, but massively enormously vastly widened the gap between the richest and poorest in society.

In times of great economic division it is usually the Left that benefits. But the liberals had already moved onto the centre ground to appeal to the college educated classes, and were pushing tepid versions of Thatcherite/Reaganite economic policies. The Left even became ashamed to use the word "socialism", allowing the Right to redefine the word to be the same as "communism". So no matter who people voted for -- Labour/Conservative, Democrat/Republican -- the gap between rich and poor expanded. The only difference between the Left and Right was how rapidly it expanded. The poor and economically disaffected decided to align themselves with the Right, buying the Right's argument that their woes were a result of liberals not being hard-core enough about Trickle Down tax cuts for the wealthy. But after decades of this, the gap continued to grow and grow and grow, and liberals were too frightened to suggest the obvious solution ("democratic socialism" -- evil evil evil!!!) So there was no way to address the problem.

The disaffected masses were wide open to suggestions that the reason they weren't benefiting from economic growth like previous generations was because of a deep-state cabal who were conspiring to oppress the masses. This conspiracy wanted to control the population, to keep the masses poor and needy. Politics was nothing more than a shame, a fiction created to hide the truth from the masses. The cabal wanted to pump vaccines into your arm, rig your elections, brainwash your children, and gobble up as much of the wealth as possible. But ironically anyone who suggested a return to the socialist policies that had been so successful in raising up the wealth of the masses from the 1920s to the 1960s was shouted down as a pinko commie bastard. (These policies actually created the modern consumerism free-market society by giving the average worker disposable income. Prior to this 95% of workers were too poor to be 'consumers'. But they'd admittedly failed miserably in the 1970s when that same free-market was undermined by a global economic crisis fueled (pun!) by oil prices. That massive failure gave Reagan and Thatcher the opportunity to push their anti-socialism economic theories which addressed the immediate problems in the 1970s, but widened the gap between rich and poor as they continued to run.)

When liberals demanded the firing of Gina Carano, it only serves to fuel the conspiracy thinking on the Right. In the world of conspiracies Gina's firing wasn't merely a company (Disney) trying to protect its reputation with large and important parts of its audience (the young and LGBTQ community)... no... Gina's firing was part of a liberal plot to censor everything, backed by George Soros! When Twitter banned hate speech it wasn't merely a company removing content that might encourage violence... no... it was a liberal plot to suppress resistance to the deep state and take away everyone's guns, backed by George Soros! When 'Big Tech' (a secret cabal within the secret cabal) blocked vaccine misinformation, it wasn't because it wanted to save lives... no... it was a liberal plot to monitor and control the masses by injecting them with experimental drugs and microchips, backed by George Soros!

So the firing of Carano really doesn't help things, because it only drives the Right further into their conspiracies. I agreed with the blocking of vaccine and COVID misinformation -- because (as noted) this misinformation does kill people -- but I'm also aware that censoring such information massively contributed to expanding and strengthening the reach of conspiratorial thinking. Solutions like this helped to drive more and more people into the welcoming arms of QAnon, et al.

What history tells us is that economic inequality tends to cause extremist politics and civil discourse. The fractious state of the debate we are now dealing with is likely being caused by people's genuine anger/fear at being left behind. If you want a world in which Gina Carano isn't hounded on Twitter for uttering a few deeply ignorant (although not violent) statements, and election workers aren't resigning in droves because of death threats, you need to reduce the wealth gap in your society and ensure economic growth works for everyone and not just the powerful. But the Left is now camped in the spot previously occupied by the Right, and are too terrified to return to their socialist roots for fear of being branded "pinko commie bastards", and the Right are now off on a whole wacky journey diving down rabbit-hole after rabbit-hole, chasing every crazy idea about FBI false-flag operations and microchips in vaccines and bamboo ballots and the ghost of dead Venezuelan leaders reprogramming voting machines. Oh, and the Jews (including George Soros) want to steal your gas cookers.

So don't expect any change soon...

R5

Sorry for the politics, but I just wanted to say, speaking as a conservative who believes in conservative principles, I feel the GOP has abandoned those principles and values, the GOP, currently constituted consists of hooligans and unhinged morons who serve at the behest of their cult leader. As Reagan said of the Democrat Party of the 60's, "I didn't leave the party, the party left me".

[Mr. X]

So the Gina thing is apparently a dead issue now.

[tmon]

Yes it's more important to some people to talk smack about Republicans. Snark!

[five_red]

The lawsuit is inherently political. The accusation is that Gina was fired for expressing her political views -- the heart of the case is the claim that liberal companies are censoring conservative viewpoints. Aside from getting into technical legal arguments about when something is and is not 'censorship', the politics of the situation is the only thing I can see that's worthy of discussion. Elon Musk is funding the suit, a man who has made very clear his views on alleged liberal bias in entertainment, media and technology companies. So it is quite legitimate to debate how censorious both liberals and conservatives are -- to what extent do they seek to silence their opponents, how have their attitudes towards censorship changed over the decades, and what has fueled any changes.


R5

[jlocke]

gina001.jpg (369.87 KiB) Viewed 1103 times

gina002.jpg (1.77 MiB) Viewed 1103 times

gina003.jpg (950.61 KiB) Viewed 1103 times

gina004.jpg (409.39 KiB) Viewed 1103 times

So I've listened to everything you guys have had to say. And I think this woman is hot. I like it when hot women say ignorant shit. I want to stick my dick in their mouth to shut them up.

[Dazzle1]

There was another period in which this stuff happened - when the religious right controlled everything and booted people for ideas. The left's response (speaking as an old lefty) was to fight this, call it out, say it was unfair. That you shouldn't have to pass a McCarthy purity test to work somewhere.

Now we deal with the same issue only different actors.

I'd agree, only now I'd say it was more actors, not different. I think that the censorious thinking that used to predominantly be reserved for the conservatives has now bleed to liberals, meanwhile the right has shifted to somewhere far more dark and crazy. To be fair, there was always some degree of dogma in classic Western liberalism -- there were always people who insisted on judging people by some loyalty or purity test -- but liberals were better at calling it out and questioning it. Conservatives traditionally seemed more comfortable with loyalty and purity tests. Conservatives always seemed better at rallying around a cause and speaking/acting with a single unified voice. Liberals often liked to debate every side of an issue, which diluted their effectiveness because getting them to act was like herding cats.

Today, however, things are different.

If you take America as the most extreme example. Sixty years ago... Liberals (Democrats) were lukewarm at best on race relations (a lot of the Democratic politicians in southern states were openly racist and ran on segregationist agendas), suspicious of the military and foreign wars, slightly sympathetic towards certain Communist states (like Cuba), and largely ambivalent when it came to women's rights and abortion. Conservatives (Republicans), meanwhile, were more supportive of race relations (Lincoln, a Republican, had freed the slaves!), welcoming of foreign wars and the military solutions, vehemently against all Communist states, and mostly supportive of abortion (both Ronald Reagan and Billy Graham supported Roe vs. Wade -- prior to the 1970s it was only Catholics that opposed abortion.) Today... everything today has shifted rightward. So the Democrats have moved from left-of-centre to right-of-centre; they are now heavily support groups like Black Lives Matter, advocate for foreign wars in places like Ukraine and support the military, oppose Russia's attempts to reclaim the territories of the former Soviet Union, and support abortion and women's reproductive rights. Republicans have shifted from a right-of-centre position towards a far-right position. Their positions on race and women's rights are informed more by religious fundamentalism and appeals to those southerners who used to have a home in the old Democrat party, they no longer want America to be a global actor but to withdraw from the world into a 'country first' philosophy, and they openly admire strong-man totalitarian regimes around the world regardless of whether they are far left or far right.

The centre ground shifted rightward. (Which is why it is amusing to hear conservatives complain about woke bleeding-heart Democrats -- those woke Democrats occupy the same political ground that used to be where the Republicans lived as recently as the 1950s and 60s.) And I think a lot of the pragmatism of old classical liberal thinking has given way to more dogmatic thinking, with more acceptance of witch hunts and censorship, and less push back against those tactics. Meanwhile the conservatives seem to have drifted into an almost cult-like position, where total loyalty to a charismatic strong man is valued above all else (Donald Trump, Boris Johnson...), even if it means tying yourself in political knots and shooting your cause in the foot (like voting against a border/immigration bill that is overwhelmingly stacked in your favour, simply because the Dear Leader has pronounced it so..!) Dissension in the modern conservative America isn't just met with censorship, it is punished with doxing, death threats and intimidation.

So, yeah, there doesn't appear to be room any more for that oft-quoted Evelyn Beatrice Hall sentiment: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It seems the modern liberal movement seems to favour "I disapprove of what you say, and I'll get you fired if you say it", while the modern conservative movement seems to favour "The Dear Leader disapproves of what you say, so expect a visit from people with assault rifles pretty soon."

It is a shame that Disney didn't "defend to the death Gina's right to say" what she did, but that's just the way things work at the moment. Disney didn't violate Gina's free speech rights, but it's a pity she couldn't say it without getting fired -- what she said was grossly ignorant and disrespectful, but she wasn't threatening anyone or advocating violence. However, I guess Gina can be thankful her only punishment was losing a job. People who speak out against the Republicans' current messiah frequently have their details doxed online, armed individuals forcing their way into their home (as happened to numerous election workers), family members attacked (as happened with Paul Pelosi), etc etc. Say what you will about bleeding-heart woke virtue-signalling snowflake liberals, but their Twitter mobs tend to stay on Twitter.


R5

Speaking as a Moderate Jewish American, I want the names of thoese terorist supporters on the Doxing trucks published, we have the right to know who they are.
And regarding attacking people for beliefs anyone who supports Trump(I dont BTW, but ack that he did some good things in office) get branded as MAGA White Supremacists

Back to Carano, Disney fired her to satisfy a loud tiny minority and it was not a good business decision, anymore than getting involved in a fued with Ron DeSantis who most of their Florida employees sided with.

[five_red]

Back to Carano, Disney fired her to satisfy a loud tiny minority and it was not a good business decision, anymore than getting involved in a fued with Ron DeSantis who most of their Florida employees sided with.

It isn't a tiny loud minority. The reason businesses are falling over themselves to be seen to be LGBTQ friendly is because it makes good business sense. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. It is the MAGA crowd who are the loud minority.

The firing of Carano was likely because Disney recognises the way the wind is blowing, and doesn't want to be tainted in years to come as the company that was on the wrong side of the social justice debate. Particularly as its employees, and a key demographic of its audience, are young, liberal, and very opinionated about social justice issues.

Disney initially didn't want to take sides on these issues, but it was actually threatened walkouts by their own employees that forced them to declare their opposition to DeSantis' "don't say gay bill". 1 2 3 This may shock you, but a disproportionately high percentage of the 'cast members' who work in Disney theme parks are gay, and a very large percentage come from demographics of society that strongly favour LGBTQ+ rights. Hate to break the news to you but although there are notable right wingers in the entertainment business, as a profession it tends to lean progressive. And Disney particularly appeals to a young demographic that is militantly progressive. The idea that the majority of 'cast member's in their Florida theme parks were Republicans, let alone DeSantis supporters, is bizarre in the extreme.

Even before the "don't say gay" bill forced Disney to finally pick a side, the House of Mouse was coming under increasing pressure to act on social justice issues. And given the demographics of its employees and its audience, Disney was always likely to side with the progressives. It made good business sense. Firing Gina Carano pisses off a handful of vocal Star Wars fans, but not firing her also pisses off a handful of Star Wars fans. So you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. But what you don't want is to acquire a reputation as being on the wrong side of social justice issues, because the general public at large are mostly favourable to gay rights, black rights, etc. The last thing you want is your blockbuster Marvel movies being tanked by a boycott -- so safer to fire Gina and suffer the angry backlash from a few nerds, than not fire her and face the wrath of the public in general.


R5

[Dazzle1]

Back to Carano, Disney fired her to satisfy a loud tiny minority and it was not a good business decision, anymore than getting involved in a fued with Ron DeSantis who most of their Florida employees sided with.

It isn't a tiny loud minority. The reason businesses are falling over themselves to be seen to be LGBTQ friendly is because it makes good business sense. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. It is the MAGA crowd who are the loud minority.

The firing of Carano was likely because Disney recognises the way the wind is blowing, and doesn't want to be tainted in years to come as the company that was on the wrong side of the social justice debate. Particularly as its employees, and a key demographic of its audience, are young, liberal, and very opinionated about social justice issues.

Disney initially didn't want to take sides on these issues, but it was actually threatened walkouts by their own employees that forced them to declare their opposition to DeSantis' "don't say gay bill". 1 2 3 This may shock you, but a disproportionately high percentage of the 'cast members' who work in Disney theme parks are gay, and a very large percentage come from demographics of society that strongly favour LGBTQ+ rights. Hate to break the news to you but although there are notable right wingers in the entertainment business, as a profession it tends to lean progressive. And Disney particularly appeals to a young demographic that is militantly progressive. The idea that the majority of 'cast member's in their Florida theme parks were Republicans, let alone DeSantis supporters, is bizarre in the extreme.

Even before the "don't say gay" bill forced Disney to finally pick a side, the House of Mouse was coming under increasing pressure to act on social justice issues. And given the demographics of its employees and its audience, Disney was always likely to side with the progressives. It made good business sense. Firing Gina Carano pisses off a handful of vocal Star Wars fans, but not firing her also pisses off a handful of Star Wars fans. So you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. But what you don't want is to acquire a reputation as being on the wrong side of social justice issues, because the general public at large are mostly favourable to gay rights, black rights, etc. The last thing you want is your blockbuster Marvel movies being tanked by a boycott -- so safer to fire Gina and suffer the angry backlash from a few nerds, than not fire her and face the wrath of the public in general.


R5

So wrong MAGA as you didainfully call them represent about half of the country.

In the case of Carano they were two Change.org petions, one to get rid of her and one to rehire her, the rehire had 10 times more peopel who signed it.

Regarding Florida , the majority of the Disney Florida employees sided wit DEsantis. Just some a few creative types in California pushed th e isses.

And the way the wind is blowing is yet to be determined, I think more people side with Martina Navratalova and Riley Gains than failed male swimmer Lia Thomas

[Mr. X]

I think more people side with Martina Navratalova and Riley Gains than failed male swimmer Lia Thomas

I side with William Thomas.

[jlocke]

Oh. I see what you're saying now. I missed that. Thanks for clearing that up.

fb511886829601.jpg (338.72 KiB) Viewed 944 times

fb92cd171122011.jpg (50.88 KiB) Viewed 944 times

c28092237872711.jpg (1.56 MiB) Viewed 944 times

[shevek]

It isn't a tiny loud minority. The reason businesses are falling over themselves to be seen to be LGBTQ friendly is because it makes good business sense. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. It is the MAGA crowd who are the loud minority.

The last thing you want is your blockbuster Marvel movies being tanked by a boycott -- so safer to fire Gina and suffer the angry backlash from a few nerds, than not fire her and face the wrath of the public in general.


R5

I'm sorry man, I love your blog, but this take is just factually incorrect.

Progressives make up only about 8% of the country. A few rich progressives back causes and therefore exert massive outsized influence (which is why this is happening, it's called ESG!) but the majority of them are either dirt poor or don't support capitalism on principle. A boycott by them would affect almost nobody.

[jlocke]

0c17091325544415.jpg (316.64 KiB) Viewed 925 times

[spikeeagle2]

She has two contentions

1. Double standards that Pedro Pascal's comments and behavior were accepted

2. Disney caved in to a small group who were upset at Carano, even though the fans were not

At least according to what I heard on Clownfish TV.

Not a lawyer, so don't know if either has cause, but from a business standpoint Disney made the wrong decision to satisfy a tiny intolerant group

It's different what Pedro did though, he like post that pro-Palestine. He did not comment on any of them (at least not that I know of) execpt call for ceasefire, like any other star, when you have a political comment on something, depends on the company policy, some company does not tolerate expression of political ideology from either side. Then that can be a reason of firing, but that would need to show "clause" (not to be confused to show cause) which mean Disney would need to be able to actively demonstrate they police ideology for both side, otherwise it wouldn't work.

The second point is a non-issue. Because it would normally be up to the executive to have their hand on their administration the way they wanted

Depends on the contract and the by-law, I don't know if Carano have a case, but usually if you need someone to bankroll your lawsuit, that mean you aren't confident about it to begin with.

Sorry to all, but I have to say liking a pro terorist post should be cause for firing

Well, people like me, a PI lawyer can earn a living in the 21st century is because mostly cooler head cannot prevail.

I don't like what people (be it Hamas, or Palestinian) did to Israel on Oct 7 like the next person, but it's different between liking a post and follow that ideology, unless people get to the stage where they start incite shit, freedom of speech and freedom of expression should apply, it's up to you to like or dislike a certain individual for their political or religious belief, but that should be separated from what the person like or dislike in public.