Actor calls 13-year-old girls "whores" at Universal Hollywood, according to cell phone video

LostKause said:

Although I really hate this lawyer getting into it, She got the desired results. All the family kept saying that they wanted was an apology from park management. They apparently could not get it when they asked to speak to management themselves, so they got the stupid lawyer.

It wouldn't have even been a big news story if management had done their job and spoke with the family, heard their concerns, and apologized. Thats what a manager taking care of guest service is supposed to do; hear concerns and apologize, and try to make it right.

But in the legal world, you can't apologize. An apology admits guilt in the court. So if the park admits guilt, then...$$ for the family.

The park/employee/manager/etc can say, "sorry you feel that way."But can not say we are sorry, or we are wrong.

It's a fine line in what EXACTLY you say. Hence the whole "Concern" comment.

Which is also the reason the execs said that they were concerned and didn't apologize.

A few years ago I read something about how there was evidence that some lawsuits could be avoided with a simple apology, and that it wasn't necessarily an admission of guilt from a legal standpoint. I can't find it now, but I did dig up these:

http://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294967833

In a legal setting, an apology is specifically not synonymous with an admission of guilt. Massachusetts implemented the first “apology law” in 1986 ... to prevent the admission of sympathetic apologies into evidence against a defendant. According to the Sorry Works! Coalition, as of February, 35 American states now have statutory apology laws that disallow linking apologies and guilt in various contexts. Clearly, the trend toward legally protecting sympathetic apologies continues.

Also more detail here: http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/JLPP/upload/Helmreich-final.pdf (page 574 specifically talks about apologies preventing long legal battles).

However, that's just from a legal standpoint; it doesn't necessarily address the PR standpoint. I imagine that, depending which side people agree with, an apology could be a positive or negative PR move. In 2011, Lowe's pulled its advertising from the show All-American Muslim in response to protestations from some conservative Christians. Meanwhile, others protested the decision to pull the ads. Lowe's was praised by the former group for "sticking to their guns" and not "cowing to the liberals" -- but to the latter group, "sticking to their guns" would've meant sticking to the decision to advertise in the first place and not "cowing to conservatives." (In the end, they kept their advertising off, and it was moot once the show was canceled after 8 episodes anyway.)

Even if an apology was an admission of guilt, on what grounds is the family entitled to monetary compensation?

Yeah, I'm not sure how Universal execs apologizing in this instance (even a non-apology apology) would leave them open to any liability, other than maybe ticket refunds if the moms demanded it, which they didn't. Perhaps one could claim that if they publicly apologize this time, that will just send a message that Universal is rrrrripe for the pickin' and someone else! will come along and demand compensation for something.

B'ster B said:

Which is also the reason the execs said that they were concerned ...

*facepalm*

LostKause said:

Most people here are interested in weather or not the actress was right or wrong to have said this to the little girls, but my biggest problem with all of this is management's foul up.

As I said before, my biggest problem is with everyone involved in the entire scenario. Agree or disagree with the scare actress' actions, it was that one action, ill-advised or not, that set off a chain reaction of stupid by everyone involved.

At the same time, LG, it doesn't necessarily make what they said just a comment to cover their proverbial butts.

The no further comment means that they said all that they needed to the family. Doesn't mean they could really care less, unless somehow you are in their heads or into mindreading.

Exactly. That's my take on an actual, official statement they made.

You keep talking about words that Allred put into their mouths.

Surely, you see the difference.

My issue isn't your opinion, it's that your giving your opinion on something that they very well may have never said or said in an entirely different way. Allred doesn't speak for Universal - most likely her words are self serving.

None of the following is correct. It's a hilariously incorrect interpretation of the story:

B'ster B said:

Not a surprising response. And the execs admit their concern as well.

B'ster B said:

Why does this have to be difficult? All I said was that the park was concerned.

B'ster B said:

GoBucks89, I was just saying that the Park said they were concerned.

B'ster B said:

Which is also the reason the execs said that they were concerned and didn't apologize.

The park never said in any public or official capacity (as far as this story reports) that they were concerned. Allred said they said that.

Big difference.

I'm concerned about the level of concern in the previous post.

Especially concerning is that no actual concern was ever officially expressed.

Your concern has been noted.

Looking at the word 'concern' so much reminds me of the word 'popcorn'.

Last question. Seriously. Why would Allred make that up? Edit**Never mind. Self-serving is your answer.

Your concern over my overuse of the word concern is well...concerning?

I'm not even saying she made it up.

Just understand that you're getting whatever was said off the record filtered through the representation for the complainants.

Allred is in it for the press.

So you can take that cookie... Never mind.

Definitely TL;DR. The park screwed up in handling the aftermath but the actor did nothing wrong. This is like going to see an adult comedy show, sitting in the front row, and taking offense to what the comedian says. If the parents are that worried about their daughter's welfare they shouldn't have let them go to the event.

Maybe the solution to all of this is to check IDs before entering an area that has "extremely adult content" and not let anyone under the age of 18 in? That way, even if a parent misjudges, the kids won't be allowed into the show by park management.

I've been to many a show at a comedy club where certain people in the audience was heckled mercilessly and the language and jokes were certainly "extremely adult". Of course, only adults were allowed into the show. Why not apply that line of thinking to amusement park shows of a certain type also?

Nothing against you Pete, but how many of you rolled your eyes when you saw that this was back at the top of the Forum Topics list?