TVSquad

He did what they asked and kept his job through the end of the season; if there was then an option period, they have no legal obligation to exercise the option. It seems to make it clear that he wasn't sincere about his regrets, which may be why the rest of the cast prefer not to work with him, and it's easier to let one person go than many. He probably has a better shot claiming he's a Christian being penalized for his beliefs by the Jewish liberals who run the show.

Reply

Well he has nothing to lose everyone already hates the asshole anyways.

And he wants press? He has lots and lots of press, all of it bad. He's a loser and obviously has several serious issues. This is the best thing ABC has done in years.

Plus there is no legal ground at all for this. He was a problem on set, no one got along with him and it made the show run badly. So like any other job would do they fired him instead of all the other people.

And I'm also glad that he admited he only went to "get help" because he was told too and not because he has a problem.

Reply

Now see this takes nerve, he's acting like the wronged person here. He made the statement , the statement caused damage to the show and to actors associated to it.

He's lucky he's not being sued by TR Knight or the rest of the cast for causing an hostile work place.

I hate to say but he brought this on himself, people where letting it go, not exactly over it, but not talking about it. Then he brought it up agian on live TV , and lied .

Suing would be a mistake, it makes him look like a TOOL, and we have every other show he every tries for this at least three times before hiring him

Reply

I know, everyone, right? The nerve of the guy . . . to think he believes he lives in a world where he can actually exercise the right of free speech. What a 'tard!!

*Please note the sarcasm. My point is this: the man has every right to say what the f$#% he wants to. He shouldn't have been forced (he was, basically) to do anything he didn't want to, especially because of one word which, I'm sorry to break it to you, means absolutely nothing, and meant nothing until the press got hold of it and decided to make it mean something.

A million people every day say a million worse things, and while I'm not saying that makes it okay, what I'm saying is that one word, in any context, is not enough to really know the attitudes of a person. And yet the American public have all judged and condemned a man they never even fuckin' met. THEY are the ones with problems.

Reply

#4

You wield sarcasm like a scalpel, sir. A scalpel welded to a giant hammer.

The founding fathers put nothing in their document about the right to call people faggots on the set of a television show. Try it at your work place and then claim you were exercising your right to free speech.

Reply

#5

Far as I know, the founding fathers put nothing in the Constitution about flag burning, hate speech, or pornography, and yet it is the document people go to in those cases, as well.

And as far as work goes, if I were to call someone that at work, and I were fired over it, I would sue.

Reply

...and you would lose. Just the same as someone watching/filming pronography or burning a flag in the workplace would lose their lawsuit too.

I refuse to believe that someone would actually think that Washington somehow has consitutional protection to use words like that anywhere but on the street (which is just about where the "free speech" protection ends in this case). Get fed somewhere else.

Reply

That idea that free speech, or any other constitutional liberty, is valid only on "the street" or some other partial aspect of our lives, is revolting. Those are protections we have all the time, or they are not protections at all, but matter priveleges provided at the whim of something or someone else, which can then be taken away at any time.

Bottom line: Washington has the right to use "words like that" (we are just talking about sounds coming out of a person'e mouth, right?) wherever he wants. If other people don't like it, fine. Their right. The show loses watchers and money? That's different. It's an economic decision. But since that hasn't happened it's clearly a case of firing for his speech, and I don't give a crap where you are, on the street, on the job, in church . . . it's wrong.

Reply

and burning a flag or watching pornography in the workplace is slightly different, as they involve doing non work-related things (and one is a safety issue, too). All of which are grounds for firing.

Reply

Oh, good. I thought that by "not going to take it anymore" he would go on a rampage, name-calling everybody and their moms.

Reply

Glad to see Chuck's an idiot.

He gave the show bad press, and no one on set wanted to work with him. So what would you have done? Fired everyone else?

Dumbass Chuck, you're a dumbass. Maybe you and Isaiah Washington can go around bitching about how freedom of speech is dieing. I'm sure the KKK wants some new members, but sadly we never let them talk. Yeah no freedom of speech.

Reply

Clearly, spelling is "dieing" as well.

The only reason it became an issue is because judgemental assholes decided he had crossed a line. Without that, there would be no bad press. Do you really think that everyone on set would have had such an issue with it if it had just been been something that happened, he apologized or whatever, and then it was done? Problem is, shit like this never dies down because the rest of are vultures, waiting for anyone to screw up so we can feel better about ourselves. Because it was never allowed to rest and it got worse and worseit made everyone on all sides of the issue angrier and angrier. People on TV have to work with people they hate all the time, but they don't get fired over it if the show's succesfull. And bad press? You mean more press? you mean more publicity? Right, that's probably why he was fired. People hate it when their show is talked abotu ever day.

Reply

Okay . . . have to admit I wish I hadn't made the spelling comment, since I mispelled a word or two there . . .
:-)

Reply

Chuck,

You don't quite understand the first amendment. The first amendment bars the government from making a law that prohibits speech. Hence, one cannot be arrested for burning the flag, viewing pornography, or calling somebody a faggot. However, employers are not the government. First amendment rights, in general, do not extend to the workplace. See this link for a more thorough explanation:

http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Sep/30/133065.html

The other problem with a potential lawsuit is that he wasn't technically fired. His option wasn't picked up. This is a huge difference because it implies that the studio was contractually allowed to decide his fate.

Reply

Brian,

you make good points. Thank you for actually having something to say that actually addressed my argument, instead of going off on some knee-jerk reaction.

I guess my beef isn't so much the legal apsect (never claimed he'd win the lawsuit), but the fact that these days people are repeatedly condemned and forced to basically recant anytime they express unpopular opinions or comments. I'm not for a second justifying what he said. Like I said above, I have no idea what his actual frame of mind is on the subject, and I refuse to allow one word to paint the man one way or the other. But the fact that he was basically forced to undergo this action and that program, etc, etc, as an attemp to "rehabilitate" him from his wicked ways, smacks too much of squelching the idea of free speech and thought in the first place.

Reply

And as said numberous times if Isaiah Washington was called a niggar by someone the whole world would have been gonig "Fire him NOW!!!" and all kinds of other bullshit. Except in this case it was only a faggot so hell, that's no big deal, we will wait months to fire the guy.

Reply

"Except in this case it was only a faggot so hell, that's no big deal, we will wait months to fire the guy."

Thanks David for pointing out the largest logically hole in chuck's 'argument' but really it's not what came out of his mouth that was the problem anyway. The problem was Washington's UNPROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOUR. He grabbed Dempsey physically when the altercation occurred - would you feel better about all this Chuck if Dempsey had filed physical assault charges against Washington? Would that make it clear for you? Less paranoid about the 'persecution' of people who want the freedom to be intolerant ***holes?

Reply

Whatever happened to that little document we hold so highly in this country, you know the one that outlines our basic rights in this country. You may know this document as The Bill of Rights.

Now I may be mistaken, but in the first paragraph (amendment 1) of this document it states the right of freedom of speech.

First, Don Imus now Washington. They both used their rights of freedom of speech, however, now they are getting fired for it.

Reply

Justin--if the assault was such a big deal, then why is he refered to in the media now as "gay-slur actor Washington" and not "physical assault actor Washington?" We're 18 comments in now, and this is the first mention of this. Of course, the assault, if that's what happened, is a different storyl. But how many people have even cared about that? I didn't even know about it until you mentioned it--none of the stories I read bothered to talk about it. Apparantly, the sounds that came out of his mouth are more important.

And as far as the "hole" in my argument . . . people are allowed to call people niggers, too. Sorry. It ain't right when they do, but that's what you get for living in this country.

Reply

And quite frankly . . . people are more than welcome to exercise their pursuit of liberty and be intolerant assholes. Again, why does the word "faggot" make him intolerant? Do you know him? Do you know his thoughts on the issues? Or are you letting one freakin' WORD make up your mind for you? You're judged him by the one word, and what everyone in the press has said about it.

That's pretty freakin' intolerant, if you ask me.

Reply