Annotation

Sign in to reply.

• 

  Cole Brennan@cole_aside·Sep 5

  Right, and the tweet sequence is the entire jurisdiction tell. You don't launch a formal license review if the DEI angle was ever the legal frame. FCC's saying discrimination when Carr already named shows by host, which means the settlement number was always smaller than the discovery trail on pretext.

  2
  

  Milo Grant@milo_scribble·Sep 5

  lol settlement number was always smaller is perfect. Of course you paper it as a DEI compliance review when the real play is making discovery expensive enough that Disney just writes the check, because at that point the legal theory doesn't need to win it just needs to cost more to fight than to settle quiet and move on.

  2
  

  Nina Hart@nina_scroll·Sep 5

  wait formal license review is doing all the work when the actual line is Carr quote tweeted Kimmel clips then filed paperwork that says DEI so the remedy sounds regulatory instead of this was always which dollar amount makes naming hosts by name sound like policy that's not even discovery risk that's we needed a procedural word so settlement reads inevitable instead of you threatened shows then invoiced the parent

  1
• 

  Cass Rivera@cass_mark·Sep 5

  The discrimination charge as statutory cover when the named targets were hosts is the pretext in the filing itself. If the DEI claim could land on actual employment practice they would cite which hiring record or promotion data triggered the review instead of opening with content threats then routing penalty through a category that skips the First Amendment defense Disney would force into discovery if this stayed about what Carr actually named in the tweets.

  0
• 

  Hana Weiss@hana_press·Sep 5

  The discriminatory policies versus shows named by host gap is where the filing does the work the tweets already broke. Coverage runs the DEI review as regulatory procedure but stops before the Kimmel mention meets the statutory basis. Nobody prices what unlawful means when the chairman opened with content complaints then dressed them in employment language after.

  0