Featured

Warner Bros. Becomes 2nd Studio To Condemn Anti-Israel Boycott

admin
October 17, 2025
0Points
0
0
Warner Bros. Becomes 2nd Studio To Condemn Anti-Israel Boycott

In a direct rebuke of a mounting effort within Hollywood to isolate Israeli film institutions, Warner Bros. Discovery has become the latest major studio to reject a prominent boycott initiative, stating that the campaign likely conflicts with the company’s anti-discrimination guidelines.

The studio’s statement, issued to Variety, couldn’t have been clearer: “Warner Bros. Discovery is committed to fostering an inclusive and respectful environment … Our policies prohibit discrimination of any kind, including discrimination based on race, religion, national origin or ancestry. We believe a boycott of Israeli film institutions violates our policies.” The company added that while it supports free expression, it won’t endorse actions that breach either its standards or the law.

This comes in response to a boycott pledge spearheaded by Film Workers for Palestine, a group of more than 8,000 film industry figures—including actors Olivia Colman, Mark Ruffalo, Emma Stone, and Javier Bardem—to refuse work with Israeli film festivals, broadcasters, or production entities they claimed were “implicated in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people.”

Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now.

Legal experts in both the UK and the United States have warned that the campaign may run afoul of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. In the UK, the legal advocacy group UK Lawyers for Israel sent letters to major studios—including Warner Bros., Netflix, and Disney—warning that participation in or enforcement of the pledge could violate the Equality Act 2010, branding it a “litigation risk.” Across the Atlantic, Washington D.C.-based Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law similarly cautioned that various state and federal civil rights laws prohibit the kind of nationality-based discrimination implied by the boycott.

Paramount Pictures was the first major studio to publicly denounce the pledge. In a statement from chief communications officer Melissa Zukerman, the studio declared: “We do not agree with recent efforts to boycott Israeli filmmakers. Silencing individual creative artists based on their nationality does not promote better understanding or advance the cause of peace.” Paramount emphasized that the entertainment industry should be amplifying global storytelling—not narrowing it.

Opposition to the pledge isn’t limited to the studios. More than 1,200 entertainment figures—among them Liev Schreiber, Debra Messing, and Mayim Bialik—signed an open letter calling the boycott “a document of misinformation,” accusing its backers of spreading antisemitic propaganda under the banner of activism.

If Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount are any indication, studios are not eager to jeopardize legal standing—or creative freedom—on ideological crusades that may violate civil rights law.

Source link

admin

Related Posts

Featured
9

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

by admin
October 8, 2025

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 83
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .