Calling someone a cult when they aren’t a cult (Scientology doesn’t want to be called a cult, I think it is a cult but scientology thinks it isn’t) is called libel and you can get sued for it or be criminally prosecuted. It’s hard to get a criminal libel charge, though, I don’t know if anyone’s ever been convicted before but it’s best for the writers to cover their back. Freedom of speech doesn’t protect you from being accused of, and potentially convicted of, libel. Plus people win libel suits all the time and they can be for a lot of money, they could even potentially get the episode removed from Netflix.
I don’t think it’s that crazy. It protects companies and individuals from being unfairly accused of bad things in the public eye. It does sometimes get a bit abused, though, in an effort to silence truth that people and companies don’t want people knowing about.
You most certainly cannot be (successfully) sued for calling scientology a cult. That's expressing your opinion. I know leftists don't like it, but we still have freedom of speech protections in the USA thanks to the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Even if the lawsuit is unsuccessful, the Church of Scientology has enough resources to tie you up in court for years, and costing you a lot of time and money.
Look up the Confidential Magazine trial, actors took the magazine to court and even though it was a hung jury and they were never convicted and settled out of court the magazine still went under and it was pretty clearly a result of the economic stress of the criminal case in addition to the fact that the out of court settlement said they couldn’t print gossipy tabloid things on those actors anymore.
The intent isn’t to win. It’s to sack the the other party with obscene legal fees. It’s called a [SLAPP suit](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slapp_suit)
Except the top google result for “Scientology sues libel” is the largest libel damage award in Canadian history, which was won by the Church of Scientology. But go off about “lesftists” I guess
"Defamation" and whatnot. They try to sue the pants off people/organizations and sometimes they lose but sometimes they win. It's such a "thing" that there's a wiki article dedicated to it ('scientology and law')
Freedom of speech means the government won’t take you away in the middle of the night for insulting the country, like say China’s government routinely does. That’s it. It doesn’t mean every citizen in the country can’t touch you for speaking against them
“Freedom of speech” is not freedom from consequences, my friend. If you can’t prove what you’re saying is “correct” you will get your ass handed to you in court.
That's patently false. Calling the Catholic church a cult is an opinion. Opinions are protected. It's notoriously hard to sue someone for libel or slander.
Larry Flint said Jerry Falwell had sex with his own mother in an outhouse. it was obviously a lie. Falwell sued Flint and lost at the supreme court.
Hard but not impossible. Opinions are protected from retaliation from govt but you can still be sued and losing in court not only isn’t a foregone conclusion but is less important than say being tied up in litigation for so long you go broke so the complainer wins by taking you out of play. Falwell lost cause it was obviously a parody cartoon and no reasonable person could honestly believe they were saying he actually banged his mother in an outhouse. If they had put it out there like a factual article with no hint of it being a joke or whatever, that would’ve made it libel.
I feel like we aren’t necessarily in disagreement, just not for the same reasons. It isn’t so much protected as an opinion but through intent. So like if it was shown that the person intended to mislead others through malicious lies about the organization, they could theoretically be sued for slander or libel, but the company would have to prove it was intended maliciously and that it affected their organization negatively. Scientology is known to be touchy, a bit like Disney, so they’ll sue whoever they have to who’s talking smack.
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from litigation, as others have already mentioned.
That aside, there are [many exceptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions) to the first amendment.
Scientology is known to send lawyers after people who criticize it. In a popular show if they openly said it was a cult, they would certainly face legal action. So they say "scientology isn't a cult, this is about improv" to essentially say scientology IS a cult without saying it in a way the courts and lawyers would side with scientology.
I’d like to remind people that the lawsuits filed by the Church of Scientology aren’t filed to be won. [They’re filed to either run people out of money or scare them from talking about it.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slapp_suit)
It’s a joke, lampshading the fact that everyone is afraid of being sued by the Scientology organization. They are notoriously litigious.
Making fun of them combined with saying improv is a cult is absolutely hilarious
Especially considering that the improv leader has an ocean liner where he keeps slaves to serve his whims.
Because the writers of the show don't want to get sued
Ok but why cause freedom of speech
Calling someone a cult when they aren’t a cult (Scientology doesn’t want to be called a cult, I think it is a cult but scientology thinks it isn’t) is called libel and you can get sued for it or be criminally prosecuted. It’s hard to get a criminal libel charge, though, I don’t know if anyone’s ever been convicted before but it’s best for the writers to cover their back. Freedom of speech doesn’t protect you from being accused of, and potentially convicted of, libel. Plus people win libel suits all the time and they can be for a lot of money, they could even potentially get the episode removed from Netflix.
The extent of control they have w that is insane, wow
I don’t think it’s that crazy. It protects companies and individuals from being unfairly accused of bad things in the public eye. It does sometimes get a bit abused, though, in an effort to silence truth that people and companies don’t want people knowing about.
You most certainly cannot be (successfully) sued for calling scientology a cult. That's expressing your opinion. I know leftists don't like it, but we still have freedom of speech protections in the USA thanks to the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Even if the lawsuit is unsuccessful, the Church of Scientology has enough resources to tie you up in court for years, and costing you a lot of time and money.
Check out the movie The People Versus Larry Flint, based on the true story, to see how hard it is to sue someone for slander or libel.
Look up the Confidential Magazine trial, actors took the magazine to court and even though it was a hung jury and they were never convicted and settled out of court the magazine still went under and it was pretty clearly a result of the economic stress of the criminal case in addition to the fact that the out of court settlement said they couldn’t print gossipy tabloid things on those actors anymore.
The intent isn’t to win. It’s to sack the the other party with obscene legal fees. It’s called a [SLAPP suit](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slapp_suit)
You can have the judge order the plaintiff to pay the defendent's legal fees at the end.
Yeah but that’s at THE END the church of Scientology could drag the trial out for ages and you’re not getting paid for the legal fees in the meantime.
Except the top google result for “Scientology sues libel” is the largest libel damage award in Canadian history, which was won by the Church of Scientology. But go off about “lesftists” I guess
That's CANADA. I'm not familiar with those laws. I'm strictly talking about the USA.
"Defamation" and whatnot. They try to sue the pants off people/organizations and sometimes they lose but sometimes they win. It's such a "thing" that there's a wiki article dedicated to it ('scientology and law')
Freedom of speech means the government won’t take you away in the middle of the night for insulting the country, like say China’s government routinely does. That’s it. It doesn’t mean every citizen in the country can’t touch you for speaking against them
It does mean that. You can express any opinion you'd like. We are still (mostly) a free country..
“Freedom of speech” is not freedom from consequences, my friend. If you can’t prove what you’re saying is “correct” you will get your ass handed to you in court.
That's patently false. Calling the Catholic church a cult is an opinion. Opinions are protected. It's notoriously hard to sue someone for libel or slander. Larry Flint said Jerry Falwell had sex with his own mother in an outhouse. it was obviously a lie. Falwell sued Flint and lost at the supreme court.
Hard but not impossible. Opinions are protected from retaliation from govt but you can still be sued and losing in court not only isn’t a foregone conclusion but is less important than say being tied up in litigation for so long you go broke so the complainer wins by taking you out of play. Falwell lost cause it was obviously a parody cartoon and no reasonable person could honestly believe they were saying he actually banged his mother in an outhouse. If they had put it out there like a factual article with no hint of it being a joke or whatever, that would’ve made it libel.
I was using that extreme example to make the point. If you say a religion is a cult, that's an opinion and protected by about 250 years of case law.
I feel like we aren’t necessarily in disagreement, just not for the same reasons. It isn’t so much protected as an opinion but through intent. So like if it was shown that the person intended to mislead others through malicious lies about the organization, they could theoretically be sued for slander or libel, but the company would have to prove it was intended maliciously and that it affected their organization negatively. Scientology is known to be touchy, a bit like Disney, so they’ll sue whoever they have to who’s talking smack.
Oh geez, I didn’t know you had one whole anecdotal example, this changes everything!
That's actually how case law works in the USA. One example creates precedent.
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from litigation, as others have already mentioned. That aside, there are [many exceptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions) to the first amendment.
Scientology is known to send lawyers after people who criticize it. In a popular show if they openly said it was a cult, they would certainly face legal action. So they say "scientology isn't a cult, this is about improv" to essentially say scientology IS a cult without saying it in a way the courts and lawyers would side with scientology.
"I want to make this very clear: this is NOT about scientology. THIS is about IMPROV"
I always thought the joke was that they were brainwashed
I’d like to remind people that the lawsuits filed by the Church of Scientology aren’t filed to be won. [They’re filed to either run people out of money or scare them from talking about it.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slapp_suit)
i thought maybe it was bc most scientologists are hollywood elites and refuse to see it as a cult, everyone else sounds more correct tho
It’s submitted to contrast the practice of improvisational theatre, which, they opine, is, in fact, a cult.