Iconic actress and TV host Whoopi Goldberg has never been afraid to speak her mind. But her outspoken nature may have finally landed "The View" star in hot water. A string of controversial remarks in 2022 sparked outrage, boycotts, and even defamation lawsuits seeking over $90 million in total damages.
For a polarizing public figure like Goldberg, controversy is nothing new. But the level of recent backlash represents a critical juncture, one that may impact her legacy and continued career. As Goldberg grapples with the fallout, her response will shape perceptions in the court of public opinion. This analysis looks at the background, what she said to prompt the firestorm, the high price tag of legal action, and why Whoopi may have trouble recovering from "cancellation station."
Goldberg‘s Early Success Masked a Rebellious Streak
Long before The View, Goldberg made history on stage and screen. Her breakout role in The Color Purple earned Golden Globe and Oscar recognition. In the 1990s and 2000s, Goldberg leveraged personality-driven vehicles like the buddy comedy Sister Act into commercial and critical acclaim.
Behind the scenes, though, signs of Goldberg‘s outspoken edge were evident early on. During her first Hollywood experience as a young actress, she would reportedly antagonize directors by refusing to learn her lines. While her talent proved too potent to contain, Goldberg‘s rebellious instincts kept things interesting on set.
Once The View launched in 2007 with Goldberg as moderator, she had an outlet tailor-made for speaking off the cuff. And as the show grew into a cultural touchstone, her commentary began making major waves — as well as a long list of enemies across the ideological spectrum.
Why Recent Remarks Draw Outsized Backlash
Given her reputation for ruffling feathers, why have Goldberg‘s latest controversial statements prompted such intense outrage? A few factors may help explain the expanded backlash.
First, the comments cut across numerous hot-button issues like Black Lives Matter, sexual assault, and Holocaust denial. Touching such an exposed nerve on multiple fronts compounds the anger.
Second, Goldberg had already been suspended just last year for controversial remarks regarding the Holocaust. The pattern recurred even after a public apology and education remedies. This may have exhausted the patience of long-time viewers and supporters.
Finally, the rise of digital media ensures Goldberg‘s words now echo farther than ever before. Shared clips and impassioned reaction videos act as a force multiplier. While fame brings influence, it also means facing instant, ubiquitous criticism when lines get crossed.
Lawsuits and Boycotts Reflect High Costs of Controversy
So what exactly did Goldberg say that sparked such a vehement desire for accountability? Here is a breakdown of the key offending remarks:
Aldean Song Criticism Prompts $50 Million Lawsuit
The first domino fell when Goldberg and fellow View co-hosts criticized country singer Jason Aldean‘s song "Dirt Road Anthem" in January 2022. They dismissed the tune as failing to recognize white privilege and inspiring complacency with racism.
Aldean took offense not just at the song interpretation but also at being labeled racist. He proceeded to sue Goldberg, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin and Ana Navarro for defamation. Damages sought in the ongoing case total a whopping $50 million.
Rittenhouse Verdict Comments Lead to $50 Million Claim
Shortly after Kyle Rittenhouse‘s November 2021 homicide trial acquittal, Goldberg told viewers: "He murdered two white supporters of BLM." Groups like the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) immediately accused her of slander.
By February 2022, Rittenhouse himself brought a defamation suit seeking $50 million from Goldberg and other media personalities. The FOP also called for boycotting sponsors of The View over the "malicious rhetoric" against Rittenhouse.
Holocaust and BLM Remarks Bring Suspension and Petitions
The floodgates opened in early 2022 when a testy exchange on The View explored racial issues around the Holocaust. Goldberg argued the genocide entailed "white-on-white crime" unrelated to race as it‘s understood regarding Black oppression.
The takes sparked horror and disbelief from public figures like Israeli politician Dani Dayan. Social media exploded with accusations of antisemitism and Holocaust denial. Within days, ABC suspended Goldberg for two weeks along with requiring her to meet with Jewish leaders.
Soon thereafter, Goldberg also created controversy by declaring "systemic racism doesn‘t exist" in America except on individual levels. This prompted Color Of Change and other social justice groups to circulate petitions calling for her permanent removal from The View. They cited her ongoing pattern of dismissing legitimate Black grievances.
Why "Canceling" Whoopi Appears an Uphill Battle
Between the lawsuits and internal sanctions, 2022 stands as a Year of Reckoning for Whoopi Goldberg. Yet those seeking her outright cancellation on The View face substantial barriers.
For one, Goldberg falls under the protection of star power and legacy credentials. Having an EGOT (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony awards) winner as lead host gives The View prestige and relevance by association.
Network brass also likely feels reluctant to lose their highest-paid talent. At a reported salary of $7 million per year, Goldberg‘s contract doesn‘t expire until 2025. The costs and disruption from replacing such an entrenched figure could give ABC executives pause.
There‘s also the court of public opinion to consider. Despite her missteps, Goldberg retains significant goodwill from loyal daytime viewers. Many comments on social media highlight redeeming factors like her advocacy for women‘s rights over the years.
Ultimately the verdict on Whoopi‘s future requires a careful weighing of principle versus pragmatism. Viewers feeling she enables prejudice may tune out no matter what. Yet her bosses perhaps still cling to hopes that Goldberg can rehabilitate her image and keep the franchise coasting on her star power.
What Whoopi Goldberg Faces If Sued for Defamation
Behind the petitions and calls for boycotts, Goldberg also contends with over $90 million in active defamation litigation. For public figures, winning such lawsuits remains an uphill battle. But the costs and risks she confronts are still formidable if either case reaches a courtroom.
The Uphill Battle of Proving "Actual Malice"
The landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan established crucial protections for public discourse. As a public figure, Whoopi Goldberg would need to demonstrate "actual malice" under this precedent. This sets an extremely high bar requiring plaintiffs to show either:
- Knowledge that a statement was false
- Reckless disregard for the truth
Otherwise, tolerating inaccuracies enables the free flow of opinions integral to debates over public issues. Still, leaving the burden of proof unmet opens the floodgates to criticism that speech was irresponsible.
No Stranger to Legal Threats
While unprecedented in scale, Goldberg is no stranger to defamation lawsuits. Over her many years in the media spotlight, legal threats have arrived periodically.
For example, Goldberg felt compelled to apologize in 2006 after questioning whether the Bush administration deliberately allowed terrorism to occur on 9/11. Even flippant jokes resulted in threats from aggrieved public figures.
Other criticisms of her commentary elicited demands for ABC to remove her from The View over the years. But the network historically dismissed calls from offended groups for her firing. With Goldberg‘s central role secure, she enjoyed insulation to continue speaking freely.
The Triple Threat: Damages, Costs and Reputational Harm
If the Rittenhouse or Aldean defamation cases reach trial stages, expect the pressure on Goldberg to intensify dramatically. Just defending against the multi-million dollar claims throttles finances through exorbitant lawyer fees, not to mention potential damages.
Court proceedings would also create a spectacle amplifying the most controversial statements to a worldwide audience. This fuels reputational harm regardless of whether defamation is legally proven.
And credibility destruction can hit where it hurts most — the wallet. As sponsors and supporters flee bad PR, extinguished endorsement deals may become additional casualties.
Indeed, even unproven accusations have dire impacts. When 9/11 conspiracy groups protested her in 2006, Goldberg lost a lucrative contract. The claimed associations with terrorism made advertisers leery of risking their own brands.
This "guilt by association" dynamic explains why Whoopi offered a desperate apology to customers of Slim Fast diet shakes. She implored the public not to punish workers losing bonuses over her conspiracy comments.
Her Own Words on Cancel Culture Signal Prescience
The question of "cancellation" permeates current debate around Whoopi‘s future. Coincidentally, not long before her recent troubles, she shared personal philosophies about accountability and free speech. These views now seem tragically prescient.
In a June 2020 podcast, Goldberg blasted modern "cancel culture" where "the truth doesn‘t seem to matter as much these days." She recounted an incident where false rumors about her nearly killed an endorsement deal. To Goldberg, pervasive reaction without investigation represented the true menace.
Elaborating further, she tied cancelation to a hunger for power instead of principle:
"So now we want to have power by stopping other people from speaking? To me, it’s the antithesis of what we should be doing."
Instead, Goldberg advocated for open-minded discussion where "we don‘t have to agree…but we gotta talk." This outlook perhaps foreshadowed her faith that even repeated missteps wouldn‘t end her career. That optimism now looks increasingly tenuous, however, under the present pressure cooker.
Her Own Hypocrisy Also Undermines Claims to Taking a Moral Stand
Of course, charges of hypocrisy further complicate Goldberg‘s position as a guardian of ethical debate. Her changes in tune regarding figures like Bill Cosby draw accusations of catering to popular whims.
Initially Goldberg refused to condemn Cosby amid scores of assault allegations. She defended the need for due process and voiced skepticism about accusers coming forward publicly. Even after 60 women shared their stories, Goldberg withheld judgment without legal proceedings.
Yet her stance shifted dramatically in 2018 when Cosby faced conviction. She overtly referred to him as a criminal guilty of drugging and assaulting victims.
When his release on technicalities then reversed the verdict, Goldberg reversed course yet again. She openly doubted justice could occur and called it a "sad day" for women betrayed by the system.
This ideological fluidity devastates credibility as a voice for moral clarity. And it may partially explain why Goldberg‘s critics so adamantly dismiss attempts to contextualize her remarks. Fair or not, the inconsistencies foster doubts about sincerity in her beliefs.
Fighting Perceptions of Hypocrisy Through Accountability
Of course, no human lacks contradictions between words and actions at times. Yet for public personalities like Whoopi Goldberg, the solution relies on facing hypocrisy through courageous accountability.
With her legacy now standing at a crossroads, Goldberg‘s best hope lies in the principles she herself voiced. This necessitates open and honest dialogue where, rather than reacting defensively, she acknowledges pain caused by her commentary.
In lieu of sidestepping criticism, a fully committed apology tour may mitigate the damage. Far more than a talk show suspension or legal judgment, earning back trust requires Goldberg to display personal growth coming out of this firestorm.
Anything less fosters the perception of media elites protecting their own while harshly judging those with less power. Indeed, double standards already represent achief grievance from leaders of cancel campaigns like #KickWhoopiOffTheView.
So Goldberg now faces a career crisis where only sincere reconciliation provides a path forward. Attempting to suppress free speech through lawsuits hardly offers the ethical high ground either. In the end, demonstrating humanity and consistency may determine if Whoopi Goldberg ever regains her cherished mainstream influence.