![]() ![]() "The scripted line in that scene was, 'Hey, young lady, step into my windowless van.' I didn't particularly like that line, so I joked, in order to highlight how distasteful the emphasis of the line was, about an 'r. The actor also described the "rape van" line as an attempted joke about a line of dialogue for the show. After reflecting on this further, I better understand that what I said was both not funny and not appropriate and I am sorry and regret the pain this caused Eliza," his statement read. When Eliza told me that she wasn't comfortable with my language and attempt at humor, I was mortified to have offended her and immediately apologized. "During the course of taping our show, I made some jokes mocking some lines in the script. In a statement to the Times, Weatherly admitted to making the inappropriate comments and apologized for his behavior toward Dushku. Jason Bull, according to the CBS investigation. There had been "well-developed plans" for Dushku to become a full-time cast member and more than just a potential love interest for Weatherly's lead character, Dr. The alleged harassment included comments about spanking Dushku over his knee, inquiring about a threesome and offering an unsolicited invitation to his "rape van." Dushku was paid a total of $9.5 million, the amount she would have made had she remained with the procedural as a series regular through four seasons. The actress was written off the CBS drama after accusing star Michael Weatherly of sexual harassment, according to a new report from the The New York Times.Īn investigation into the sexual harassment allegations against former CBS CEO Les Moonves revealed a $9.5 million settlement between CBS and the Bring It On star, who said that she was ousted from the series after confronting Weatherly about his inappropriate behavior. It really is true that everything that is searchable on the Internet stays out there unless it's put up and taken back down very quickly between scans.There's a reason you haven't seen Eliza Dushku's well-received J.P. This is already reality: The Library of Congress takes a "snapshot" of the entire web every two weeks and adds it to its archives. ![]() ![]() ![]() Incidentally, at one point Bull comments that the government may even search and view the whole web from time to time. I think choosing the jury with questions pertaining to this right would have worked much better. The jury selection process, which is the foundation of the show, was glossed over. I think the episode would have been far better if they reduced the issues about whether the client was guilty and did more to bring up the issue of the right to privacy. But it felt like it was more about whether the protagonists believed their clients were guilty of the crime than the case which was the right to privacy. But does this right exist when the things they're protecting needs to be part of a major criminal case: a bombing with many casualties including fatalities? That's the question this show is allegedly about. The fourth amendment gives them the right to privacy. Since the US judicial system decided a company is a person, they must fall under the same bill of rights as a human. This episode was about the right to privacy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |