Thanks for asking the question. I'm a female grad student of color studying 18th century European literature. Needless to say, I come across many, shall we say, "outdated" ways of thinking of all kinds of people (Germans, French, West Africans, Greenlanders, et al). Yet, I absolutely love the beautiful, the art, and the good within this period. They win over the ignorance.

P.S. Which is why people pay such close attention to Imus and Paris. What they offer in exchange doesn't make the tolerance of their intolerance (ignorance) worth it. From what I hear, Washington was actually a good contributor to Grey's Anatomy.

I look at it differently. I don't look at it like a celebrity. I look at it like racism in the workplace. If he worked at my job and that incident happened here - he would be fired PERIOD. That incident happened on set at work. It was simply leaked to the public. I think we are forgetting that. If someone called him the N word at work - if it was the other way around - we would DEMAND they fire him wouldn't we? I think it's a double standard. I think we look at faggot not being NEARLY as offensive as the N word. Look - I won't even type it. AND we should. They are EQUALLY OFFENSIVE. If I was GAY and he worked at my job - and he called me that word - I would EXPECT them to FIRE HIM. PERIOD. Take the celebrity OUT of it.

Part of actors' work, UtLH, is saying "offensive" things in order to get us to understand them. Spielberg recreated Nazi Germany (as did Kenneth Branagh to a much more isolated and chilling effect)–does that mean that he's anti-Jewish. Of course not.

Artists receive a pass on many things because they are supposed to be holding up mirrors to nature. I'm by no means saying Washington should have said what he did, but I'm just explaining that the environment in which artists work is different than many other places.

Cord and ronnie, they are actors on screen and people off screen. If we won't accept anti anything from random people on the street, why should celebs get a pass? What have they done to deserve a pass? Mr. Washington wasn't creating "art" when he called TR Knight a "faggot" and Imus was not creating "art" when he called those ladies "nappy-headed hos."

And Cord, Brando made that comment in 1996, when people didn't care, in particular liberals and progressives. Further, the rest of the quote is:

"Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of–of people who are suffering. Because they've exploited–we have seen the–we have seen the Nigger and Greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the Kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the wagons around."

King replied, "When you say–when you say something like that you are playing right in, though, to anti-Semitic people who say the Jews are–"at which point Brando interrupted, "No, no, because I will be the first one who will appraise the Jews honestly and say 'Thank God for the Jews.'"

Brando was an equal opportunity offender and an equal opportunity praiser. The same connot be said of either Mr. Imus, or Mr. Washington.

Art must be separated from real life. This lack of separtion is what allows actors who drive drunk get off scot free. Allows Paris Hilton to use racist slurs, yet still be treated like royalty. And allows rappers to call it "art" when it's plain and simple homophobia and misogyny.

A line has to be drawn and a balance made, Cord. It is not, "beliefs that jibe with our own." It's keeping everyone to the same standard of decency. I'm sure Mr. Washington does not like being called a "nigger" and Mr. Imus does not like being called a draft dogger. Perhaps they should consider this, when insulting those around them

I'm so glad to have read Mr. Enemabag's comments, especially the extended Brando quote.

Celebrity is too often a panacea for responsibility. American publics who consistantly affirm this viewpoint (while at the same time reaching for celebrity) often just begin the ambitious enterprise of excusing their own vemon.

Imus and Washington were not making critical statements about the nature of race and sexuality–or the tunnel vision for offense that groups and people can sometimes have. Their comments weren't surrounded with poetry, and they weren't the "outdated" zeitgeist of an era that doesn't exist anymore. They definitely weren't recreating Nazi Germany in order to humanize it while still criticizing it.

Imus and Washington said what they said to be offensive, employing the re-directed and misdirected intent of the anti-PC fever that is only just now breaking. They attacked, unconstructively, two groups who are already publicly disenfranchized for the sake of a laugh and a jab, respectively. That wasn't art, and it speaks poorly of their abilities to even produce works of intelligent, critical force.

This post speaks poorly to me of mollygood's ability to do the same. I miss the old writer.

Cord, great article. I feel that you wrote this to get people to think about the issue a bit more than the one sided way it is been thrown down our throats. Its nice to see that some people get this…..

What exactly is being "thought" about here, Moke? People should be allowed to make fun of minorities with no social consequences? What is wrong with you people?

Wow, brilliant, Cord. You've really opened my eyes. The next time someone beats up a gay kid because they feel like it's socially sanctioned, I'll remember all the important art Isaiah Washington has given us by acting in an inaccurate medical drama!

Thanks for making me think about this a little more than the one sided way I usually do. Hate speech IS important! As long as bloggers have un-cited Brando quotes to fall back on, important points are being made.

Kudos!

This post was created to 'bait' us into dialogue. It was set-up a little better than previous posts, which I appreciate, as the dialogue then became more meaningful. BUT it's still the same strategy.

Is there a way for this site to create meaningful conversation about pop culture–while still being funny–and not having Cord make stupid comments to engage debate? Why can't there be a Daily Show version of a pop culture blog; smart, funny and relevant?

There is a difference between someone who attacks after being attacked (Michael Richards, Isaih Washington) when you retaliate you always go for the decimating blow. Then there is the true racist someone like Mel Gibson. Then there is the mean vile person that is Don Imus who attacks for entertainment. You just have to be smart enough to look at each case individually. Should Imus have lost his job as a black woman I say no. Giving people free reign to insult people for just being is wrong.

Comparing what Imus said to what rappers say in their videos is like comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same thing.

One MAJOR difference between Washington and Imus? What he said ABOUT (not TO) TR Knight was not broadcast. Many of you are speculating as to what he said, how he said it, and so forth. You have no idea whether or what Washington was doing when the originating incident occurred. Content without context is pretext. The only time Washington's use of the offensive of the word was broadcast, he was denying (whether he was lying is irrelevant to this point) that he had called Knight the word. This is what caused an unnecessary uproar, methinks. Using "faggot" as a descriptive is different than using it as a pejorative.

Whoever said or implied that I'd sanction the physical assault of kids or minorities lacks reading comprehension. Your civil rights end where your fist ends and my nose begins–physicality is not the issue. It's a matter of the line of your mouth to my ear. A little trickier to bifurcate. Actually, impossible.

I think societally-determined consequences, whether realized through SOCIETY's marketplace or SOCIETY's legislature should be the determiner of free speech.

To quote Stanley Crouch, whom I'm in a love-hate relationship with right now: “For those great contributors with bigoted limitations,” he says, “one must always be ready to say, ‘Thank you and fuck you very much,’”

So glad to see that you've succumbed to Cord's powers, sandie. Welcome!

"The Brando comment I quoted is from an article printed in 1979"

Even better, Cord. Brando said that in 1979 when people REALLY didn't care. A time when Blaxploitation was all the rage; gays were presented as mincing psychos and women "wanted" to be raped and broguht it on themselves. Much has changed, Cord. Do you honestly think he would get away with that today?

Secondly, he made both comments during interviews, not while on screen; again the difference between real life and art. Should he be chastised for throwing around slurs? Yes. However, it's apparent that Brando used vulgarity and bigotry to strike home a point and was willing ready to give praise too.

Without seeing the entire Playboy interview, we don't know what he went on to say. Something that is clearer in the Larry King quote

Correction. We would have had had Vito Corleone, Stanley Kowalski or Colonel Walter E Kurtz. They'd just be played by another talented actor. And that's the key. Acting is a job. If at my place of work, any employee — no matter how talented — portrays themselves in the local media as a bigot, they too would be fired.

"What he said ABOUT (not TO) TR Knight was not broadcast."

Ronnie, TR knight was standing right there when Mr. Washington used the slur.

"Many of you are speculating as to what he said, how he said it, and so forth."

No speculation, ronnie. What everyone involved confirmed exactly what happened.

"You have no idea whether or what Washington was doing when the originating incident occurred."

He was assaulting Patrick Dempsey.

"Content without context is pretext."

Assualt and anti-gay slurs on a co-worker need no context, ronnie. The cameras weren't rolling; it was not "art."

"The only time Washington's use of the offensive of the word was broadcast, he was denying (whether he was lying is irrelevant to this point) that he had called Knight the word. This is what caused an unnecessary uproar, methinks."

You thinks wrong, ronnie. the uproar came long before the Golden Globes debacle.

"Using "faggot" as a descriptive is different than using it as a pejorative."

WTF? So it's ok to describe someone as a faggot, but it's not ok to call a person a faggot as an insult? You're spinning like a Maytag, ronnie

"There is a difference between someone who attacks after being attacked (Michael Richards, Isaih Washington) when you retaliate you always go for the decimating blow."

Crap, amara. Slurs are used not as a defense, or a debate tactic, but as the insults that they are.

"Then there is the true racist someone like Mel Gibson."

How is he a "true" racist, while the other two are not bigots? Perhaps Mr. Gibson was merely defending himself against the backlash from the Jewish community for attacking "The Passion of the Christ" and was using a decimating blow in retaliation.

"Comparing what Imus said to what rappers say in their videos is like comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same thing."

That comment doesn't surprise me, coming from a black woman

WTF? So it's ok to describe someone as a faggot, but it's not ok to call a person a faggot as an insult? You're spinning like a Maytag, Ronnie

No, I am not saying I like to hear people described as faggot (even when gays use it amongst themselves), I’m saying I have no problem saying, “So and so used “nigger” in their song. This has caused an uproar." You know, how you used “nigger” in an earlier post. You were using it to describe a situation, to make your point.

You are a full-on ass. Now, how’s ‘bout that enema?

You are wrong! there is no way that someone would be fired for calling a coworker a name. If a boss called an employee a name it is possible.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH ladies and gentlemen you dont have to like the speech but you have to LOVE the right to it.

As an aside to what I believe is the point Cord is trying to make here, Brenda, as an employment attorney, it is certainly possible that an employee could (and most likely would) be fired for calling a co-worker a "fa**ot" (or a "ni**er, or any other pejorative word). That is not to say, however, that Washington should be fired. Like in any employment situation, it would likely depend on Knight's (and possibly other employees') ability to and comfort in working with Washington in the future, as well as many other factors.