Good Lord
I don’t know how I missed this until now, but back in April, “a California appeals court…reinstated a harassment claim brought by a woman who worked on the hit show [Friends] as a writer’s assistant and claimed that she was subjected to an array of racial and sexual harassment, including enduring sexually explicit comments about the program’s female stars.”
If interested you can see a copy of the court documents detaling her claim at The Smoking Gun. I think most would agree the comments certainly go beyond “lewd”… as reported. But the thing is…I’m always skeptical when people try to write down jokes in legalese.
That’s one of the things that makes Woodward’s book on Belushi, for example, shall we say…a less than wholly accurate picture of the man and his humor. It’s also one of the things that killed Lenny Bruce in court–policemen would read transcripts of his act, badly. Like an uninspired performance of a piece of music, too much gets lost in translation, to coin a phrase. And considering that this woman was fired for her inability to get jokes down on paper properly…
There is of course a larger issue that concerns me. Certainly I’ve said things in a joking manner which, if repeated in black-and-white, could make me seem a much worse person than I am. (Realizing that is a process through which every young Internet poster must pass, and I’m certainly no exception. Right, Corey?)
Also, the woman’s biggest complaints seem to center on the fact that the writers expressed a sexual desire for the actresses, and speculated on the sexuality of one of the actors.
Gee. Sexual fantasies about TV stars and curiosity about their sexual orientation. Well, there’s no one else in these United States (or Canada) who’s had either of those, is there?
This should have all been an easily dismissed nuisance lawsuit (which it originally was–easily dismissed, I mean) brought by someone who no one seems to question now was fired for anything but just cause.
Until the appeal court reinstated part of her claim. As this Yahoo! News item reports–
“Several groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs to protest the appeals court decision. They include the Motion Picture Assn. of America, which represents the major studios, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, the Writers Guild of America, newspaper publishers, First Amendment advocacy groups and feminist groups.”
–and last month the California Supreme Court agreed to review the case, which is said to have been “closely watched in media circles because of its potential impact.” The concern is that:
“The (appeals) opinion hangs like Damocles’ sword over the heads of employees in any workplace in which speech, particularly that which might offend others, is an integral part of the ‘business’ and an indispensable part of the job,” according to the defendants’ petition for a Supreme Court review. “The issue presented here is narrow but exceedingly consequential.”
(“Narrow but exceedingly consequential.” Is it just me, or is that just a perfect opposite of what this blog is?)
