You know, he could have told all this and left the racial element out, too.  If he did feel some need to unburden himself, he could have just said that after his friend was raped, for several nights he hung around outside of pubs hoping violence might break out and he could vent his rage.

Had he framed it in that way, I think the reaction would have been very different.

Removing him from a movie would be purely a market issue.  If the studio is worried about the movie being boycotted due to his presence, they'll remove him.  If they think there's no threat of boycott or that his presence will benefit box office despite the controversy, they'll leave him in.

This isn't a new thing.  Hundreds of actors have been left on the cutting room floor in the history of cinema for a variety of reasons.

-----

Kevin Spacey's footage as J. Paul Getty in ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD was reshot with Christopher Plummer in light of the numerous accusations of sexual assault on Spacey's part. He continues to exist in all his previous movies. No Orwellian concerns are warranted with regard to Spacey.

There's all this concern about celebrities being 'blacklisted' or banished as if they're somehow being oppressed.  Liam Neeson has made untold millions of dollars playing pretend on film.  He's been paid that rather ridiculous sum of money because people have enjoyed watching him do it, and have voluntarily paid money to go see him on screen.  If he says or does something that causes people to not want to see him on screen anymore, then that's that.  His movies won't do well at the box office, and so studios will stop casting him.  And he can go retire on his pile of money.

I mean, those who are so worried about him becoming an 'unperson' for saying the wrong thing...what...should movie studios be forced to cast him?  Should people be forced to pay to see his movies?