Can we never have a character who uses "gay" in that way?

If not, then yes, that infringes upon the free speech of the writer. But to me, there is something more important at play here.

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know whether Vince Vaughan is playing himself, representing his own sense of what's what; or whether he is playing a character who uses that word in that way. I also do not know whether he wrote the part, or ad-libbed, or what.

But I do object to the idea that writers cannot use pejorative terms, homophobic terms, racist terms, when crafting their characters. That notion, in my opinion, sends us in the wrong direction entirely. Those terms, spoken by those characters, may help us to see who those characters ultimately are.

If a film, story, novel, etc. is to stand up to the test of mirroring life in some important way, then yes, we are going to need to have characters who speak and act just like people in real life. And yes, many people in real life do persist in using hurtful words, for better or for worse.

(I'm reminded of the scene in Salinger where Holden considers the "f" word, and wishes to blot it out of existence, only to come to the conclusion that when he is dead, someone will probably write it on his tombstone. What's interesting about this passage to me is that in order to discuss his desire to suppress the word, he has to say it . . . which leads to a really interesting question about the possibility of censorship, if not its ultimate futility.)

Why should the characters in fiction be different from actual people? Why must we write "nicey-nice"? What purpose is served?

A writer could legitimately ask, "I'm not one to use such terms, but my characters might be. And shall my work be banned for that?"

Herring405