Imagine failing in life on recruit difficulty.
But that’s what happened to 15-year-old Isabella Herndon, who unalived herself after watching “Thirteen Reasons Why,” a series that received extensive criticism for its graphic portrayal of rape and suicide. Here’s a Facebook post by her father about his daughter's unaliving:
I mean, how do you even become depressed as a white femoid? But I digress.
Back in January 2022, @RoastieBeef and I wrote separate threads on the Herndon family’s lawsuit after a federal district judge dismissed it. In their attempt to block Netflix’s motion to strike, the Herndon family’s attorneys attempted to argue that their lawsuit was targeted not at the content of the show itself, but at Netflix's recommendation algorithms. But Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected this argument:
In other words, Judge Rogers concluded that the content of Thirteen Reasons Why was inextricably tied to the very nature of the Herndon family’s claims, and because the content was an exercise of Netflix's free speech rights, Netflix could not be tortiously liable for it.
At the time, we praised Judge Rogers’ ruling. Here at Incels.is, we frequently engage in speech that normies consider shocking, offensive, or disagreeable—so we have a vested interest in seeing that the First Amendment is upheld for generations to come. The First Amendment undoubtedly protects speech regarding suicide, sexual assault, and school violence, among other distressing issues that are in the public interest, and imposes no obligation on speakers to sanitize or self-censor their speech. That’s why we think Netflix deserved—and deserves—to emerge victorious.
Unable to accept the truth that Netflix was not responsible for their daughter’s death, Herndon’s family appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. So this Thursday, after two years of procedural wrangling, the appeal will be heard by a panel of three appellate judges—Miller, Bade, and VanDyke, all of whom are Trump appointees.
Here’s the kicker: Should the Herndon family lose again, Netflix would be well within their rights to demand that the family pay Netflix’s legal fees, under California’s anti-SLAPP provisions. Even at the district court level alone, Netflix’s fees totalled $700,000. I’m not kidding: here’s a copy of an email sent from Blanca Young, a litigation partner at Munger Tolles, to the Herndon family’s attorneys, back in 2022:
Sadly, Netflix stated in their answering brief that they would not seek attorney's fees from the Herndon family.
Though I think it would be immeasurably funny if they did, and would deter other retarded families from attempting to trample on the First Amendment. You can read the Herndon family’s opening brief here, Netflix’s answering brief here, and the Herndon family’s reply brief here. I also highly recommend reading the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression’s (FIRE) amicus brief in this case—UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh perfectly distils why and how graphic depictions of violence are constitutionally protected. Let’s hope the Ninth Circuit does its job by affirming the district court and punting this lolsuit out of existence.
The case is The Estate of Isabella "Bella" Herndon v. Netflix, Inc., 22-15260. Oral argument is scheduled for February 15th, 2024 at 9:00 am in Courtroom 3 of the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco.
Last edited:
