Talk:Isaiah Washington

Comments

He was very good as Lane Stailey in an episode of Homicide: Life on the Street. He probably showed more emotion in the 10-20 minutes he was on that episode than he has in his entire run playing Burke, thus far anyway. Granted though he was playing a high-strung crook there and Burke's character is a reserved neat-freak. Anyway the Burke character's kind of important to the show so I might do a page on the character later. Granted they may write him out soon, but I think it'll be hard for them to do that.--T. Anthony 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It says in the page that he was fired today but he hasn't been. He's gone into treatment though. I can't edit it as it is locked BumblebeeUK 19:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can not believe that there is a line that reads, "he is a vile, dirty n-----" and this thing is locked. Get that outta there

Wikipedia is not a tabloid

The recent dismissal of Washington from Grey's Anatomy should at most be a minor footnote, there are some serious WP:UNDUE weight issues being applied to this person's biography. RFerreira 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited out the last sentence that Washington has not acknowelged that using the word "faggot" is a form of workplace sexual harassment which is a crime in some states as this is untrue. While the term "faggot" may be considered a form of sexual harassment, sexual harassment is not a crime (that would be sexual assault), and also it depends exclusively on the opinion of the judicial system weather or not in a case by case situation was sexual harassment. 216.201.33.20 05:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sexual harassment is illegal in the United States.

Wikipedia's own page on sexual harassment states that "sexual harassment is considered a form of illegal discrimination in many countries, and is a form of abuse (sexual and psychological) and bullying."

In 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission produced a set of guidelines for defining and enforcing Title VII (in 1984 it was expanded to include educational institutions). The EEOC defines sexual harassment as:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

1. Submission to such conduct was made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,

2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or

3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

1. and 2. are called "quid pro quo" (Latin for "this for that" or "something for something"). They are essentially "sexual bribery", or promising of benefits, and "sexual coercion".

Type 3. known as "hostile work environment," is by far the most common form. This form is less clear cut and is more subjective.[21]

But sexual harassment is not a crime, which is what the article stated.

Sexual harassment is not entirely illegal either. The entire basis is an interpretation of "sexual harassment" as form of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, there in fact is no law describing what you have listed, only an arbitrary interpretation which was only established in the eighties, thats a decade and a half after the law was originally passed.

At any rate Washington's behavior was not illegal, nor was it a crime, and it is a form of free speech protected under the first amendment, so even if there were a law it would be unconstitutional. 216.201.33.20 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't; thousands of businesses around the United States have policies in place to discourage sexual harassment, and termination of employment is one such punishment for sexual harassment; if it was protected under the first amendment, then nobody would lose their jobs over sexually offensive remarks or behavior. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats not what we were talking about. Buisness have policy yes, however that is differant from laws and from crimes. The last person suggested it was either a crime or illegal, it was neither. While it may have violated his workplace policy that doesn't make it illegal, it is legal grounds for termination of employment, but it is not illegal to say that. It is a form of free speech protected under the constitution.

Additionally it has to be proven that it did in fact violate workplace policy, and that it was sexual harassment. So far neither of these have been proven either. 216.201.33.20 07:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was illegal, but I did say that it was not protected by the constitution, since free speech protected by the constitution is reserved for comments that are not inflammatory or cause no harm; have you never heard of the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example? --PeanutCheeseBar 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No I have not heard that example. However you are extremely wrong, inflamatory speech is protected under the constitution. Adolph Hitlers Mein Kampf is filled with inflamatory hate speech against jews, and it is protected under the Constitution as a form of free speech. The use of the word "faggot" is also protected under the constitution.

As for this being sexual harassment, once again there is no actual law against sexual harassment, merely a contraversial interpretation of a law, that has to be fought out in court, once more sexual harassment has to actually be sexual as well. Hate speech does not classify as "sexual" harassment. 216.201.33.20 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you've never heard the example that I speak of, then you should not be so quick as to say that I am "extremely wrong":

Despite Schenck being overturned, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.

Just because you don't get punished for abusing the first amendment via use of inflammatory speech, does not necessarily mean that what you said was "protected". That aside, if sexual harassment or malicious speech was "protected", nobody could be fired for sexually harassing another person, nor could people be arrested for making threats. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That example is a wiki example and proves nothing.

First of all if it weren't protected under the first amendment then you could be punished. Sexual harassment is protected under the first amendment, however companys have the right to fire somebody for any reason that they choose provided they can prove it is valid, and related to the company, at this time.

As for making threats, you are not arrested for using free speech but attempting to coerce somebody with illegal behavior.

I strongly suggest you take time to study constitutional law, free speech, and sexual harassment law before you go making any further untrue statements.

As I have already told you, there is no actual law against sexual harassment, only the interpretation of a law that prohibits sex discrimination, and this interpetation is widely disputed.

Furthermore it has to be sexual. Washington made no sexual advance at T.J. Knight, therefore you can't even construe it as that.

Hate speech is protected under the Constitution, if it weren't then it would be illegal to sell Mein Kampf in America. 216.201.33.41 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That example is a wiki example and proves nothing.

So, why exactly are you slamming Wikipedia again?

I am afraid you are still mistaken; I have taken time to study constitutional law while in school (a requirement mandated by the state my school was in), and this is how I know of the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example that I previously referred to. It's not just some "Wikipedia example" as you put it, but an actual court case that judges have referred to as a precedent when weighing the potential malicious impact of said free speech; a lot of what you're saying isn't fact, but merely opinion.

As I have also already told you: I didn't say it was illegal (in reference to sexual harrassment) , but I did say that it was not protected by the Constitution, since free speech protected by the constitution is reserved for comments that are not inflammatory or cause no harm. That said, you can feel free to defame people as you wish, but if there is some malicious impact and a lawsuit were to develop, you cannot expect to hide behind the Constitution under the guise of "free speech", especially if the persons harmed by your speech can demonstrate that your speech has deprived them of happiness or the ability to live life the way they want. You seem to forget that we live in a rather litigious society, and people will sue at the drop of a hat should their "happiness" or quality of life be compromised in any way.

As I have also repeated before, just because you are not punished (or sued) for something, does not mean it is protected or not illegal; as such, if you write a book that defames someone, that person DOES have the right to sue to prevent the distribution or sale of the book. Take a look at the articles printed in the tabloids; some celebrities simply choose to ignore them, while others take genuine offense at things printed within their articles, and sometimes take legal measures. If such "free speech" was protected, then why are people allowed to sue them (and consequently, why are they awarded generous cash settlements when settled out of court)? I think you just might need to re-examine what is construed as protected speech, since that argument has come up in a lot of court cases as an excuse to justify not being punished for having said something, and legally does not always hold water; otherwise, we would see much fewer libel and slander lawsuits. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For starters wikipedia is not a valid source in and of itself, secondly you really need to go back to school.

You seem to think that just because you have the right to sue that that means you will win. Anyone can go to court, that doesn't mean you have a case. Courts have rulled that tabloids can print naked pictures of Jennifer Aniston illegal taken on the grounds of free speech, despite the fact that it harmed her "happiness or the ability to live life the way they want."

Tabloids printing does not continue simply because movies stars over look them, they continue printing because they are protected under the consitution.

The fact is that hate speech is protected under the first amendment, it is a civil right. Every example you provide includes somebody using speech to incite illegal behavior. Speech itself, no matter what the speech is, unless it is untrue (which this wasn't) is protect under the Constitution.

If it were not the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, ect . . . would not be allowed to be active, and yet they are and still have their demonstrations.

At any rate the issue was sexual harassment, and this was not sexual harassment. 216.201.12.175 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a mild suggestion but as you seem to be so hot on wikipedia, you should check out wiki's article on hate speech here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech 216.201.12.175 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For starters, the article I linked to earlier has a link to the court case mentioned within the article, which DOES have sources; given that, maybe you should click through and follow the trail before making uninformed statements and personal attacks.

Second, nowhere did I say that your ability to sue was a guaranteed legal victory; not every celebrity who has sued a tabloid has ever won, but the fact that many have done so successfully shows that for the "free speech" that tabloids have, they can still be held liable for statements they have printed, hence the lawsuits that are filed against them. Oftentimes, tabloids will work out a settlement, since doing so can prevent a costly court battle that they otherwise are likely to lose.

As I've pointed out from the court case mentioned previously, and from the other minor examples, not all speech is protected; tabloids do not "incite violence", and yet celebrities have been able to sue them successfully. Just because you have made false statements in the past does not mean that you lose the right to free speech; tabloids continue to print not because they're protected by free speech, but because they have not been financially ruined by lawsuits filed against those they have libeled. Unfortunately, the article you recommended does not contribute much to the discussion, since much of it is OR and is unsourced. --PeanutCheeseBar 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are forgetting though is that when tabloids are sued, it is not because they do not have a legal right to free speech, it is because they have defamed that persons character by slander (which has to be untrue), Isaiah Washington did not. Nothing Isaiah Washington was untrue. He called T.J. Knight a "faggot", (although this has been called into question) and whats more as "faggot" means "wuss" "nacny boy" "effimate" ect . . . that is a value judgement, and an expression of opinion, not slander.

When tabloids make up storys, they are lieing to harms someones reputation, Washington was expressing his opinion, which he has the right to do, and which is protected form of free speech.

You don't seem to realize that just because you have a right to free speech does not mean that you can't be fired for expressing it, nor does it mean that it is not protected.

At any rate the original statement which I deleted, stated that it was sexual harassment, which it wasn't, meaning that that was untrue, and could be construed as slander. 216.201.12.175 15:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

To chime in (and hopefully not get my head cut off), I will concede that sexual harassment as we know it is an intepretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that interpretation was one that was created by the Supreme Court of the United States, whose job it is to intrepret the law. It is just as illegal as quotas or housing discrimination because the body that is governed with intepreting laws says it is. I found all of this out with a quick google search and a little business law knowledge.

With that said, whether the people at Grey's interpreted Mr. Washingtons acts as sexual harassment and fired him on that basis or not is speculative and should not be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.137.33 (talk) 02:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

You are completely correct on this issue, but it should be noted that the Supreme Courts rulings change with its members, and unless something is clearly written into law it wouldn't be wise to include it, paticularly since we now have a new Supreme Court, and also the fact that it could be construed as slander, especially since there was no sexual connotation connected to it. 216.201.33.27 05:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court rulings do not change as the members do; Supreme Court rulings set precedents, which may change IF the issue comes up again in their court, but the interpretation of the law simply does not change if one member of the Supreme Court retires and a new one is installed. PeanutCheeseBar 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Charity Work section needs to be reconsidered

The section on Washington's charitable foundation is pure puff-piece promo stuff. What were people thinking? Should be axed unless it's rewritten in a neutral, simply informative way - if it even needs to be there. If the foundation actually happens to be important, perhaps it should have its own article, and material quoted from its mission statement (which is what the passage sounds like - something written by the press office for the org?) should appear as quotations. 24.90.17.134 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Its overall length (and extended commentary on individual charitable projects) is insufficiently noteworthy, inconsistent with the articles of other philanthropic actors, and belies its true nature as preemptive character bolstering.sæ (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that agreement. It is, as a point of fact, a press release [ http://www.reachonemillion.org/?page_id=3 ]. No doubt they are dedicated people doing good work, but the wiki entry should not be a copy/paste job from the group's homepage.

Best photo?

This is the best photo anyone could come up with? It's creepy-looking, IMHO. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Listing of works in lead

We have a filmography section in this article. Excessive list in lead serves no purpose. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)