Lee Daniels Wants Sean Penn Lawsuit Dismissed: "The First Amendment is Not For Sale"

Lee Daniels could have simply denied Sean Penn’s allegations in a $10 million insult lawsuit. Instead, the Empire creator is sharpened for a moon with an try to boot Penn’s lawsuit during an early stage. In justice papers filed in New York state justice on Thursday, Daniels slams his authorised counter for attempting to chill constitutionally stable giveaway speech.

Penn sued Daniels in Sep over a criticism that Daniels had made. In an talk with The Hollywood Reporter published progressing that month, Daniels shielded Empire star Terrence Howard over media reports of domestic trouble. “[Terrence] ain’t finished zero opposite than Marlon Brando or Sean Penn, and all of a remarkable he’s some f—in’ demon,” Daniels told THR. “That’s a pointer of a time, of race, of where we are right now in America.”

The lawsuit from Penn, who denies ever attack women, alleges this is insult since it “falsely equates” Howard with Penn.

Today, Daniels responds that his criticism represents non-actionable opinion and is not receptive to insulting meaning.

As such, his fit to boot states, “Penn’s Complaint is merely a blunt-force instrument wielded in an try to control a account of his life and to expunge alleged misdeeds sensationalized by a press for decades. Worse yet, a Complaint attempts to overpower Daniels’ overtly hold opinion, a grant to a marketplace of ideas uttered during a nation’s painful discuss about secular inconsistency and domestic violence. The First Amendment abhors attempts to chill discuss on prohibited topics.” 

Because this is a fit to boot rather than a fit for outline judgment, a decider is thankful to accept plaintiffs’ chronicle of events in a pleading. Daniels’ plea is convincing a decider that even on a face, what Daniels pronounced can’t be proven loyal or false, has no implications that would get a reader there and is exposed opinion.

The bulk of a fit (read here in full) is clinging to ancillary this goal, with word that a supposed imputing of rapist function on Penn’s partial would usually be seen by those reading Howard’s talk and doing an eccentric investigation. Daniels offer argues that both a context of a essay (his contention of the Empire phenomenon) and a broader amicable context (diversity in Hollywood, how a media treats secular issues) both vigilance opinion.

Despite being compelled by what a decider will accept at the fit to boot phase, Daniels though attempts to disagree a deficiency of tangible malice. Not usually that, though Daniels puts brazen a “substantially true” invulnerability — indicating to “a entertain century of unchanging media coverage on Penn’s purported domestic abuse” (which pertains to his attribute in a late ’80s with Madonna) — and creates a provocative “libel proof” evidence that would in many resources be an emanate indifferent for a jury, or during slightest a decider after some significant investigation.

Daniels’ profession James Sammataro states that a Google hunt of “Sean Penn and domestic violence” produces 432,000 results. “Given a volume and extent of a broadside per Penn’s purported domestic abuse, together with a astringency and specificity of Penn’s purported actions, a Challenged Statement could not have spoiled his already tarnished repute on a subject of domestic abuse,” he writes.  

Penn will, of course, conflict a exclusion motion. If he succeeds, a box would pierce to a find proviso that could positively be unsure (at slightest from a P.R. standpoint) for both sides.

Matthew Rosengart, Penn’s attorney, says he is relishing that opportunity.

In a matter about Daniels’ motion, Rosengart says, “The defendant’s statements were false, vast and defamatory, and his stretched efforts to clear them are futile and mostly nonsensical. The explain that a fit was brought to conceal a free-speech right is facially absurd. The defendant’s insulting statements apparently served no legitimate or other journalistic purpose. To a contrary, a suspect defamed Mr. Penn (and Marlon Brando), for his possess personal exaltation and profit, to offer his possess mercantile and personal bulletin and to foster and code his radio show. We demeanour brazen to prosecuting the box in court.”

Tags:
author

Author: