South Park
Imagine being a fly on the wall watching her reaction to the Panderverse episode. It would have been awesome.
shareIt has been reported she and Disney were consulting legal teams and considering legal actions against paramount for damages on both Disney and herself.
So it might not be that interesting after all.
It has been reported she and Disney were consulting legal teams and considering legal actions against paramount for damages on both Disney and herself.
They only need to prove that the portrayals were satire, and to be honest, they're so close to dead-on that they easily fall within the envelope of "satire".
share
Yes, that is generally the case.
But I think it is also about whether they can prove there have been damages.
You might be on to something. While Googling suggests that satire is a protected form of speech and claims of damaged are generally turned away by courts, I did find this >
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed in Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), that a parody, which no reasonable person expected to be true, was protected free speech.
So the question is if satire is too close to home, does that make any perceived mental injures compensable? I mean, there's a good chance that Kennedy acts exactly like the South Park hit piece.
I think what Kathleen Kennedy and Disney were mostly arguing, which was reported they have been discussing with Paramount, were reputation and financial damages to Disney and her.
I mean the plot was ridiculous, and none was to believe any of it, but "put a chick in it and make it gay" is pretty much spot on and not really an exaggeration.
And Disney stock and new movies have been falling and if they can prove they are related to the episode ...
Yeah, but tying in satire from a cartoon to loss of movie revenue is going to be difficult - hell - impossible to prove.
The reputation damage they are suffering (which is legitimate) isn't the result of satire, it's the direct result of Kennedy's boneheaded decisions, and it isn't just South Park that's lampooning this easy target - there are hundreds or even thousands of of comedians, talk show hosts, youtube/twitter/facebook warriors having at them. Proving their reputation damage on a relatively low market TV show - I believe their viewership is about 650K - is a long shot indeed.
I think if they file a lawsuit, they're opening themselves to a countersuit for filing a frivolous lawsuit if it gets dismissed, which is likely.
I would be STUNNED if their lawyers go ahead with a lawsuit.
That is probably why a lawsuit is not filed as yet, I think so far they merely threaten with it to deter any further episodes.
share
I remember when Brazil pitched a fit because the Simpsons had an episode where they visited the country and it was portrayed as having kidnappers and monkeys running wild in the streets. They complained to the U.S. State Dept over it.
The following season, when discussing a vacation, Homer said something that anywhere but Brazil was fine because (and he turned to the "camera" breaking the fourth wall) he heard the monkey problem was worse than ever.
I have no dog in the fight as I don't really care what happens to Kennedy or Disney, but when people rail again satire (which to me is the most brilliant and entertaining of comedy), I love to see them get it back times ten.
I don't know what SP will do or if Paramount tells them to back off, but I'll bet that they do some kind of follow up just based on Disney's reaction.
I hope so too.
But big corporations like Disney have far more power and influence than Brazil government.
I think those meetings were the results of Disney legal team requests, and recorded by lawyers with purpose to build up to a case, and if Paramount were going further then Disney could argue Paramount has malicious intents and determined to do harm.
I am no lawyer, but in that situation it is more likely they would have a case.