During the 2026 British Academy Film Awards, a controversial interaction between Michael B. Jordan, Delroy Lindo and John Davidson left the public in shock.
Just as Jordan and Lindo were taking the stage to receive an award for their part in the movie “Sinners”—a movie set in the Jim Crow era—a racial slur was shouted from the crowd. The culprit was Scottish actor John Davidson, who struggles with Tourette syndrome.
The British network decided to not censor the slur despite having censored out other profanities that Davidson said throughout the show. This decision has sparked debate online. Some viewers believe the slur should have been censored, while others argue the interaction was an unfortunate but real example of the effects of Tourette syndrome.
PV junior Kalie Tessen believes that the slur should have been censored. She said the moment shows how the entertainment industry must continue working to create a safe environment. “I do believe the entertainment industry has improved over the past few decades. However, there is still a long way to go. As society changes and grows in a positive direction, it is important that the entertainment industry keeps up,” Tessen said.
Senior Kate Fitzpatrick also does not support the network’s decision because of the meaning and history behind the slur. “Language that targets a specific racial or marginalized group, like that slur, is unacceptable in the media and should be censored,” Fitzpatrick said. “Even though the media often allows mild profanity, hate speech crosses a line because it can harm communities and create a hostile environment for viewers.”
Since the incident, Davidson has officially apologized and explained his actions. The actor said his Tourette’s makes him say involuntary words that do not reflect his personal beliefs. The moment, although mortifying for the actor, has also created an opportunity for audiences to learn more about Tourettes.
Fitzpatrick explained how the situation could become a learning moment.
“Showing moments like this could help people learn that some individuals cannot control certain words or sounds. However, broadcasting it without censoring also risks normalizing extremely harmful language,” Fitzpatrick said.
The controversy has sparked a broader conversation about how media organizations should handle offensive moments while still educating audiences. While Davidson has clarified that his actions were involuntary and not reflective of his beliefs, the network’s decision not to censor the moment continues to raise concerns.
Modern broadcasting and media have a responsibility to guide these controversial conversations and provide thoughtful context, rather than ignoring the discourse for the sake of convenience.
