Extra: Bravo Is Sued For Real Housewives of NY Pressing McSweeney to Drink Cites Free Speech

More on X for Subscribers here and below the paywall / subscribe (support) line here

Bravo Is Sued For Real Housewives of NY Pressing McSweeney to Drink Cites Free Speech

by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Aug 13 – Arguing that she was pressured into drinking alcohol while on the "Real Housewives of New York" show, Leah McSweeney has sued NBC, Bravo, Andy Cohen and others. The defendant argue that they are protected by the First Amendment. 

    On August 13, this was argued before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis J. Liman, who mentioned a possible conflict of interest while calling the free speech / anti-SLAPP defense "interesting." Inner City Press was there. From the thread:

Judge Liman: How much of this is about the shows the Defendants put up?

McSweeney's lawyer: Discriminatory speech is not protected. So we do not think discovery should be stayed. Judge: What discovery are you going to need?

McSweeney's lawyer: On air and off air footage. Some of the conduct intended to retaliate against Ms. McSweeney was coordinated with others. So, third party discovery.

Bravo / Cohen lawyer Levin: This is implicates the First Amendment. It could chill free speech. There are anti-SLAPP laws  Judge: Doesn't part of this have to do with alcohol and drinking? Could a producer require an actor to drink alcohol?

Defense lawyer: That's not what happened here. But the First Amendment would protect the employer in that case from a lawsuit, for authenticity Judge: What about smoking marijuana, since that's criminal? [Federally]

Defense: Producers may require nudity, or something else they're uncomfortable with, under the First Amendment.  Judge: I have relatives in the movie business

Defense: There may be 57 witnesses, the Housewives from three separate seasons... There was a trip to Thailand. This is not a straightforward case - given the First Amendment issues, discovery should be stayed.  

Judge: I'm not going to rule today on the motion for a stay of discovery. I'm going to wait until I get an opposition from the plaintiff to the motion to dismiss. I am sensitive to the First Amendment arguments, and to the anti-SLAPP analogy.  

Judge: This may be different than the normal commercial case. But let's set a post discovery conference date. June 25 at 2 pm. Very interesting case.

More on X for Subscribers here and below the paywall / subscribe (support) line here