‘What Iger and Redstone did was to slander Barr.’
questionable; the statement would have to be false in order for it to rise to defamation...they referred to her actions as ‘repulsive’; it would be difficult to find that statement false on its face...
Repulsive in the context of charges of racism. They could be called to testify what they were thinking when Jarrett accused her of being a racist. Their comments were attached to that setting. They cannot escape it.
It was absolutely unnecessary to characterize the termination of their contract by coloring it as stemming from ‘repulsive’ comments. They needed only say “No Further Comment”. Their comments were out of bounds, wholly unnecessary.
Instead, they sought to punish, to damage her brand. They are liable for damages because she did not attack them. They attacked her.
Although they have every right to defend their bottom line, they do not have a right to slander. They can terminate a contract but have no right to attack another corporation “Barr” who did not attack them.
What if Barr had commented that Jarrett reminded people of some character from a strange Radical Muslim Klingon film where the Klingons were white?
Would Iger and Redstone have taken the same action? Yes. This is not about racism, this is about striking against any notable person or group that challenges one of their own country club members.
This isn’t even about Barr anymore, this is about political correctness, about free speech for all of us. As the President so aptly pointed out, they made no comments when he was called so many untrue horrible things. Their hypocrisy is on full display as usual.