Aren't they supposed to? I'm trying to see from all sides and can only agree with tran's post here, since as my previous post says, this is like the most optimally least questionable (even from pov of the offender and their sympathizers) outcome possible for a situation like this, hence I'm puzzled why you took a very broad look at this situation ("allowed to hire?") then use "faux outcry", wrongly imo. The public doesn't even have time to react to this; an actress has a real, unfaux problem in working with a man with his offense, with their roles like that, without foreknowledge, and brings it to the bosses; they examine and feel it's a bad look for the company, so they don't want to use that part of the work. Done.Quoting Dukefrukem (view post)