The New York Times, who had been granted access to notes from the investigation, revealed that Dushku had claimed Weatherly made jokes about rape and group sex towards her, as well as crude comments about her appearance, and encouraged an atmosphere on set that saw crew members imitate his behaviour. Following an internal investigation in early 2017, CBS agreed to pay Dushku a rough equivalent of the money she would have earned if she had stayed on as a regular cast member for four further seasons, as originally planned.
#Eliza dushku cooking show series#
Last week it was revealed that Dushku had been paid $9.5 million by American broadcaster CBS after a plan to join the drama series Bull as a series regular was abruptly curtailed days after Dushku discreetly asked the show’s star, actor Michael Weatherly, to stop making sexual innuendos and inappropriate comments around her.ĭushku had previously expressed worry to her management that Weatherly would try and get her fired from the show.
For while Eliza Dushku has long been associated with genre television and cult movies like True Lies and Bring It On, she has also become a Hollywood figure recognised for her openness and personal resolve, demonstrating a strength that even her toughest characters would struggle to emulate. It really is true that everything that is searchable on the Internet stays out there unless it's put up and taken back down very quickly between scans.One of the stars of Buffy the Vampire Slayer taking down misogynist power structures at one of the biggest conglomerates in the USA? It's only a surprise to those who haven't been paying attention. This is already reality: The Library of Congress takes a "snapshot" of the entire web every two weeks and adds it to its archives. Incidentally, at one point Bull comments that the government may even search and view the whole web from time to time. I think choosing the jury with questions pertaining to this right would have worked much better. The jury selection process, which is the foundation of the show, was glossed over. I think the episode would have been far better if they reduced the issues about whether the client was guilty and did more to bring up the issue of the right to privacy. But it felt like it was more about whether the protagonists believed their clients were guilty of the crime than the case which was the right to privacy. But does this right exist when the things they're protecting needs to be part of a major criminal case: a bombing with many casualties including fatalities? That's the question this show is allegedly about. The fourth amendment gives them the right to privacy. Since the US judicial system decided a company is a person, they must fall under the same bill of rights as a human.
This episode was about the right to privacy.
0 kommentar(er)
