Being able to say something controversial or offensive is precisely the reason why freedom of speech is necessary. There's no need to have "freedom" to do what everyone else finds non-objectionable.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken
Scoundrels are the easiest targets but denying them of freedoms ultimately denies everyone of those same freedoms.
What are you talking about? Youssef (the guy who made the film) tricked her (Garcia) into thinking she was acting for a completely different film and role. That should be illegal...
As far as what actually happened, I haven't seen any alleged contract, and it seems to me if you act in a film you should expect no control over the final product unless you have a contract saying you do. The nature of the film could be changed; your lines could be dubbed.
>you should expect no control over the final product
So be sure to watch the final product before acting in a movie.
However, this court case is about copyright claims and work contracts.
The death threats are another case, and should probably be investigated so that the perpetrators can be prosecuted.
However, I'm not eager to throw actors' rights out the window just because their motives for exercising them arise from their being wronged by a third party. Copyright is copyright and in America, we take intellectual property seriously.
It's "garbage" in the sense of "terrible film making". The actor's voices change occasionally, probably because it was poorly edited afterwards to make them appear to say something different from what they actually said.,