Bafta awards controversy

[Anonymous]

The "apology" is terrible, just awful. Not a single word recognizing the impact of his actions. Just more plugging of his own project.

I am far less sympathetic after this statement than I was before it, to be honest. How hard would it be to acknowledge harm, if you are writing a statement anyway?

https://variety.com/2026/film/awards/i-swear-john-davidson-deeply-mortified-shouting-n-word-baftas-1236670082/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If you have to compare a disabled adult to an infant to defend their decision to remain in a public place when they want to scream the n-word, you are ableist yourself.

He felt he had the right to stay no matter what came out of his mouth. Make of that what you will. But don’t compare it to an infant with indigestion.

Both might intend no harm, but one is fully aware he might cause it and decides it’s worth the risk.

I am not comparing him and an infant. I was giving an example for those saying the only thing that matters is impact - not intent, not the disability, not the controllability, not the voluntary / involuntary - only impact on others. That nothing else is relevant and the only thing that should be even considered in this situation is impact and since they perceive there was an impact, he is responsible and needs to be held accountable for that impact.

What he felt was that he had a right to accept an invitation extended to him for a film on his life about Tourette Syndrome and Copralalia where the exact behavior he exhibited was known to those who invited him and was the focus of the documentary his invitation related to.

That is exactly what you did. Anyway... you're almost there. He felt he had the right to accept an invitation. Did he have any responsibility after realizing he was being a distraction and offending others?

No, I compared two involuntary, uncontrolled actions without intent that had an impact.
He left and remained in another room for the remainder of the BAFTAs and then returned for the dinner. What did you want him to do? And it wasn't him the person being a distraction or offending others - it was the symptom of copralalia that results from him having Tourette Syndrome. I don't even know if those in the room were offended once they understood that it was copralalia and not someone insulting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

LOL! You think a white employee at a company who yells racist slurs to black people would not face any discipline? You're so delusional. You can't have people yelling racist slurs at employees or customers; this would be taken care of very swiftly.

The prior PP was wrong. Very wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

That's highly unlikely.

You’d be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If you have to compare a disabled adult to an infant to defend their decision to remain in a public place when they want to scream the n-word, you are ableist yourself.

He felt he had the right to stay no matter what came out of his mouth. Make of that what you will. But don’t compare it to an infant with indigestion.

Both might intend no harm, but one is fully aware he might cause it and decides it’s worth the risk.

I am not comparing him and an infant. I was giving an example for those saying the only thing that matters is impact - not intent, not the disability, not the controllability, not the voluntary / involuntary - only impact on others. That nothing else is relevant and the only thing that should be even considered in this situation is impact and since they perceive there was an impact, he is responsible and needs to be held accountable for that impact.

What he felt was that he had a right to accept an invitation extended to him for a film on his life about Tourette Syndrome and Copralalia where the exact behavior he exhibited was known to those who invited him and was the focus of the documentary his invitation related to.

That is exactly what you did. Anyway... you're almost there. He felt he had the right to accept an invitation. Did he have any responsibility after realizing he was being a distraction and offending others?

No, I compared two involuntary, uncontrolled actions without intent that had an impact.
He left and remained in another room for the remainder of the BAFTAs and then returned for the dinner. What did you want him to do? And it wasn't him the person being a distraction or offending others - it was the symptom of copralalia that results from him having Tourette Syndrome. I don't even know if those in the room were offended once they understood that it was copralalia and not someone insulting them.

And then he did what? Oh that right. Screamed the N word AGAIN at a black woman. So he was already aware that he couldn’t control this tic, screams the N word a few times, leaves way after he does that, and comes back and does it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The BBC is messed up. They had a delay and did not censor the word? Shame on them.

“Warner Bros., the studio behind Sinners, has its own version of events. The company’s position is that it raised forceful concerns with BAFTA representatives immediately after Jordan and Lindo’s experience. Warner Bros. is understood to have asked BAFTA to ensure an edit was made to the BBC broadcast and received reassurances that a message would be relayed. A source said the company continued to make representations to BAFTA CEO Jane Millichip and chair Sara Putt at the dinner that followed the awards.”

https://deadline.com/2026/02/how-bbc-missed-bafta-racial-slur-john-davidson-1236733115/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The first case you mentioned is still before the courts and the employee who filed will be required to show that the racial outbursts were the result of racism and not Tourette's. The employee wasn't fired - the case was that another employee filed a case for racial discrimination. The employee with Tourette's had been working there for awhile

The other one the company tried 4 different accommodations and the employee ended up quitting their job and going to work for a different company. Again the employee wasn't fired. He chose to leave as he wasn't happy with the offerred accommodations. He later sued and lost as the company had made many efforts to accommodate and had offered him even more options and he chose to quit.

The third one relates to ability to perform required tasks with / without accommodation. So it was a customer facing position where customers could not be made aware of the condition. The job description required excellent communication and exemplary customer service. Given the transient nature of the interactions (grocery store) there was no way to accommodate to meet the required task of face to face contact with many customers passing through a cash register line. The suit also states there was misconduct that wasn't directly caused by the disability. This is the only case that fired the employee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The first case you mentioned is still before the courts and the employee who filed will be required to show that the racial outbursts were the result of racism and not Tourette's. The employee wasn't fired - the case was that another employee filed a case for racial discrimination. The employee with Tourette's had been working there for awhile

The other one the company tried 4 different accommodations and the employee ended up quitting their job and going to work for a different company. Again the employee wasn't fired. He chose to leave as he wasn't happy with the offerred accommodations. He later sued and lost as the company had made many efforts to accommodate and had offered him even more options and he chose to quit.

The third one relates to ability to perform required tasks with / without accommodation. So it was a customer facing position where customers could not be made aware of the condition. The job description required excellent communication and exemplary customer service. Given the transient nature of the interactions (grocery store) there was no way to accommodate to meet the required task of face to face contact with many customers passing through a cash register line. The suit also states there was misconduct that wasn't directly caused by the disability. This is the only case that fired the employee.

Which is why I quoted court said about the ADA. I see you conveniently ignored that.

The rest of the cases uphold that you cannot hide behind the ADA and scream racist words at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

Nope. “ … that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The first case you mentioned is still before the courts and the employee who filed will be required to show that the racial outbursts were the result of racism and not Tourette's. The employee wasn't fired - the case was that another employee filed a case for racial discrimination. The employee with Tourette's had been working there for awhile

The other one the company tried 4 different accommodations and the employee ended up quitting their job and going to work for a different company. Again the employee wasn't fired. He chose to leave as he wasn't happy with the offerred accommodations. He later sued and lost as the company had made many efforts to accommodate and had offered him even more options and he chose to quit.

The third one relates to ability to perform required tasks with / without accommodation. So it was a customer facing position where customers could not be made aware of the condition. The job description required excellent communication and exemplary customer service. Given the transient nature of the interactions (grocery store) there was no way to accommodate to meet the required task of face to face contact with many customers passing through a cash register line. The suit also states there was misconduct that wasn't directly caused by the disability. This is the only case that fired the employee.

Which is why I quoted court said about the ADA. I see you conveniently ignored that.

The rest of the cases uphold that you cannot hide behind the ADA and scream racist words at work.

Thats not entirely true bc they tried to move the coca cola employee around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "apology" is terrible, just awful. Not a single word recognizing the impact of his actions. Just more plugging of his own project.

I am far less sympathetic after this statement than I was before it, to be honest. How hard would it be to acknowledge harm, if you are writing a statement anyway?

https://variety.com/2026/film/awards/i-swear-john-davidson-deeply-mortified-shouting-n-word-baftas-1236670082/

I'm trying to be understanding but, yes, this is a pretty poor apology. I am learning that people with Tourettes don't think they should have to apologize for who they are (and I agree to an extent), but they shouldn't ignore the potential harm their tics could cause others. Davidson didn't even acknowledge the specific harm that word in that setting would cause the Black folks on the receiving end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

Nope. “ … that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."

Take action? Like what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

Nope. “ … that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."

Take action? Like what?

Do you not work?