I think the market basically takes care of this whole issue. If a company doesn't like your public opinions because it thinks they're doing harm to a company they can fire you. If consumers don't like the decision Disney made they can voice their opinion or choose to not give them their business. Disney is doing this for money and nothing else, and their consumers will vote if this was right or not with their dollars.
Kinda sucks for Disney because a lot of people wanted her fired and a lot of people also are defending her so either way they're screwed.
OF course they're doing it for money. When your face and likeness is tied to their company because your visage is part of their most popular franchise at the moment, everything you say publicly becomes a reflection on the company. In an industry where image is everything, they absolutely are going to control their image.
This is the same **** we discussed years ago when a firefighter got fired on Twitter. I had argued then that if he wasn't wearing his uniform, there would be no connecting him to his employer and he wouldn't have been fired. However, the moment you make idiotic comments and you look like the face of a company or are tied to that company, then the company is going to do everything it needs to do to protect itself. If you're projecting an image that they feel is harmful to their profits, they're going to jump on the opportunity to make an example of you to correct the image. Branding, image, etc. are highly profitable. An retail industry executive and I were having coffee one day and I'll never forget something he said, "Everyone thinks Nike makes and sells shoes. Nike doesn't sell shoes. Hell, they don't even make their shoes. They hire outside contractors to do that. What Nike creates is a
lifestyle through image and branding. That's their product, not the actual material goods." That's how important image is. So this is why athletes who **** up get tanked and the same goes here for Gina with Disney.