Lee Daniels Files To Dismiss Sean Penn’s $10 Million Defamation Lawsuit

He's protecting his empire with the freedom of speech.

"Empire" co-creator Lee Daniels has invoked the First Amendment in an attempt to dismiss Sean Penn's $10 million defamation lawsuit against him, blasting the actor for attempting to "chill speech on hot topics."

In his Thursday motion to dismiss the suit, Daniels took the "Dead Man Walking" star to task for his claim that Daniels had defamed him by suggesting he'd been violent toward women — and called the lawsuit "a blunt-force wielded in an attempt to control the narrative of (Penn's) life."

"With fame, money and high-priced legal counsel, Penn has the power to buy most things," Daniels' lawyer wrote in court papers published by the Hollywood Reporter.

"Fortunately for Daniels, the First Amendment is not for sale," the dismissal request continues. "It protects Daniels and others from lawsuits like this one, financially-draining attacks brought to punish free speech."

Though the First Amendment prohibits government restriction on free speech, it doesn't apply to one citizen's statements about another.

Penn sued "The Butler" director in September after Daniels compared him to an admitted domestic abuser, "Empire" star Terrence Howard, in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter.

"That poor boy, (Terrence) ain't done nothing different than Marlon Brando or Sean Penn, and all of a sudden he's some f---in' demon," Daniels, 55, told the industry publication. "That's a sign of the time, of race, of where we are right now in America."

The 55-year-old "Milk" star, hailed in his suit as "one of this generation's most highly acclaimed and greatest artists and humanitarians," slammed Daniels' comment as "reckless, false and defamatory."

"In purporting to 'defend' the ongoing legal and related troubles of … the star of Daniels' television show 'Empire' — who has reportedly, and publicly, admitted to physically abusing at least one woman … Daniels has falsely asserted and/or implied that Penn is guilty of ongoing, continuing violence against women," the suit said.

But the director’s motion for dismissal argued that his statement was a constitutionally protected opinion — and that domestic violence allegations, true or not, have dogged Penn for decades.

"The public domain is saturated with tales of Penn's alleged violent acts," Daniels' lawyer wrote. "The Challenged Statement could not have harmed his already tarnished reputation on the topic of domestic abuse."

Google searching "Sean Penn and domestic violence" retrieves 432,000 results, many of which predated Daniels' comments, he added.

Penn's attorney called Daniels' free-speech case "facially absurd" in a statement to THR, arguing that his statements about Penn had "served no legitimate or other journalistic purpose."

"We look forward to prosecuting our case in court," he said.

SOURCE