Harvey Weinstein allegations; who's next when it comes to allegations? (1 Viewer)

[Sam Posten]

If your litmus test is whether an accusation goes to trial before deciding if someone has committed harassment then roughly zero percent of those guilty of harassment will ever be dealt with. They know this and count on it, and as we have seen abusers and harassers cover for each other to ensure that it never gets that far. It's too easy to make the victims just give up.

What you CAN do is be an advocate for victims. Trust that the vast majority of them are not making stuff up or have an axe to grind. And when multiple victims tell you that someone is a scum you should believe them more, not less.

Look, I get it, men think that there's so much going on here that a few of these women must be lying, right? If you give in to these thoughts you are part of the problem.

 

[Ruz-El]

If your litmus test is whether an accusation goes to trial before deciding if someone has committed harassment then roughly zero percent of those guilty of harassment will ever be dealt with. They know this and count on it, and as we have seen abusers and harassers cover for each other to ensure that it never gets that far. It's too easy to make the victims just give up.

What you CAN do is be an advocate for victims. Trust that the vast majority of them are not making stuff up or have an axe to grind. And when multiple victims tell you that someone is a scum you should believe them more, not less.

Look, I get it, men think that there's so much going on here that a few of these women must be lying, right? If you give in to these thoughts you are part of the problem.

Sam, thank you for posting this.

In other news, a re-evaluation of Forrest J Ackerman (Monsters of Filmland). some big names confirming some sick stuff:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/mon...forrest-j-ackerman-s-metoo-moment-t68925.html

(well, big names in the horror historian community anyway...)

 

[John Dirk]

Main thing with the Ellen Page thing I posted, is it shows just how bad the boys club was/is and how the changes that need to happen is one of culture at large, not just those with criminal intent. The problem is larger than the courts.

If you believe what she said, then yes. I'm not saying whether or not I do, just illustrating the dilemma as I see it.

The courts might say Danny Masterton is innocent based on what was presented. Is it fair he's out of a job over a he said/she said situation? Not really. But I believe that the victims, and I'm okay with Masterton, Franco, Asari, whoever losing work if that's what it takes to improve the situation for everyone.

I don't even think Masterson has had his day in court [yet] but what you've stated above [IMO] is the problem. You "believe that the victims."[sic] Clearly lots of other do too, based on the only fact we collectively have which is that there are multiple victims. I assume this is interpreted as a preponderance of evidence? There are many examples in our history, however, where well meaning people have "believed the victims" and an innocent person or persons suffered much more dire consequences than what is at stake in any of these cases. Again, I'm not trying to lecture here, only to illustrate. Clearly this has played out the other way many times too.

I'll be really sad if Tarantino gets lumped in over the Kill Bill stuff (honestly, I'm surprised the Tarantino backlash hasn't happened sooner, he's been a critical darling his entire career and has never had a public kicking), but if it means larger world change, than so be it. It's only movies.

I commend you for sharing this. I'm also a huge Tarantino fan but your statement does point to bias, which we all have. In my case I think it's Ansari. I just can't see a guy like that harassing anyone. The timing of that accusation was also suspicious. To me it's not "only movies." I LOVE movies and all sorts of on-screen entertainment, which may represent another bias on my part. I'll admit, I was really getting into The Ranch and looking forward to the next season when I read about the Masterson situation. It bothers me that this nice diversion of a show is being [most likely] prematurely taken away without [what I see as] appropriate cause.

Side note: One of the things that I'm noticing is how totally garbage these positions really are. The director can abuse his position because he's a very important director, or star because he rbings in box office, or producer because he does whatever. After watching all those thousands of hours of making of's on the DVDs and blu-rays we all are here to love, it's kind of a bunch of bullsh*t. Directing is time and people management as much as anything else. I'm not saying I'm the next Spielberg, talent obviously plays into it, but I bet if you gave me $80 million, a script and some good techs I could make a decent film.

This is another reason why I'm losing any sleep of these guys losing their jobs. I don't care how much money the studios can make, I just like good movies. I'm sure they can all be replaced.

LoL!!! - We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I truly appreciate the dialogue and your post has taught me a thing or two.

Thanks for that!

 

[John Dirk]

If your litmus test is whether an accusation goes to trial before deciding if someone has committed harassment then roughly zero percent of those guilty of harassment will ever be dealt with. They know this and count on it, and as we have seen abusers and harassers cover for each other to ensure that it never gets that far. It's too easy to make the victims just give up.

Sam... I think you know that if these women had come forward with these claims in a timely fashion we would not be having this conversation today. We can hypothesize any number of reasons why they did not. The tragedy here [I think] is that some of the allegations are likely true and some are likely not. Courts are our best resource for sorting this out so they do matter. Again, "harassment" is not illegal although it is certainly not honorable and also not [ostensibly] tolerated in most corporate settings. I'm not a lawyer but I do have several friends who are. No lawyer wants a case based solely on decades-old hear say. Now I'm old enough to know that what you described above certainly happens but can you also agree that there will be other cases where the "victim" is really nothing more than an opportunist? Perhaps an organized opportunist but an opportunist nonetheless. Should we just take the word of the victims based on how many of them surface or should we dig deeper before passing judgement?

What you CAN do is be an advocate for victims. Trust that the vast majority of them are not making stuff up or have an axe to grind. And when multiple victims tell you that someone is a scum you should believe them more, not less.

I could do this but I am not inclined to. I'm an Engineer and so I tend to adopt scientific methods. I do want to be an advocate for victims but I also realize the truth of the world we live in, especially in Hollywood circles. Not everyone who claims to be a victim really is one. As I see it, the Bill Cosby accusations opened the flood gates. Whether this happened because previously disenfranchised victims now felt they had a suitable platform or lurking opportunists came out of the woodwork is the essential matter of discussion here. I freely admit, "I don't know" but, respectfully, I don't think you do either.

 

[Ruz-El]

I could do this but I am not inclined to. I'm an Engineer and so I tend to adopt scientific methods. I do want to be an advocate for victims but I also realize the truth of the world we live in, especially in Hollywood circles. Not everyone who claims to be a victim really is one. As I see it, the Bill Cosby accusations opened the flood gates. Whether this happened because previously disenfranchised victims now felt they had a suitable platform or lurking opportunists came out of the woodwork is the essential matter of discussion here. I freely admit, "I don't know" but, respectfully, I don't think you do either.

I understand this, but the following link changed my mind on the courts so that I now lean much more into believing the victims first. In light of you comment on Ellen Page, an incident that happened in front of others and I believe was confirmed by others on the set. : " You mentioned If you believe what she said, then yes. I'm not saying whether or not I do, just illustrating the dilemma as I see it."

What I'm linking to below is far too common in cases of sexual assault (and a rough read, trigger warning, etc):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...atement-of-brock-turners-victim-a7222371.html

Another case (in my neck of the woods, the is endemic to the west, not America) in which a victim was told, by the judge, to keep her knees together.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-keep-your-knees-together-comment-rape-trial

Now knowing this happens, general disbelief of or dismissal of the victims claims, on top of the trauma experienced by the victim, should they be expected to be perfect defendants? Can you see how maybe they would be hesitant to come forward as "lone gunmen"?

Seeing how woman are blamed for the attacks, I think the rules are a little different. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is the standard, but as Amber Tamblyn tweeted last night, in the case of assault and harassment the victim should be trusted until the accused is proven innocent. I don't think Cosby opened the floodgates in wrongful accusations, i think Cosby opened the floodgates on calling out predatory behaviour and showed women that they are not alone.

I hope this helps you understand my position, which I also understand can seem unfair or hypocritical. (though I'm adamant in thinking that directors are precious angels. Give me a shot! I'll prove I can do it! )

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Again, "harassment" is not illegal

It is, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

"In most modern legal contexts, sexual harassment is illegal. As defined by the United States' Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), "It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex." Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. The legal definition of sexual harassment varies by jurisdiction. Sexual harassment is subject to a directive in the European Union.[2] Sexual harassment constitutes an unlawful employment practice in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal equal employment opportunity law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of five protected classes: Race, color, sex, religion and national origin."

 

[TonyD]

Whait a minute, John you think harassment is not illegal?

What in the bleep

 

[John Dirk]

I understand this, but the following link changed my mind on the courts so that I now lean much more into believing the victims first. In light of you comment on Ellen Page, an incident that happened in front of others and I believe was confirmed by others on the set. : " You mentioned If you believe what she said, then yes. I'm not saying whether or not I do, just illustrating the dilemma as I see it."

What I'm linking to below is far too common in cases of sexual assault (and a rough read, trigger warning, etc):

I viewed the content. My opinion is unchanged but that's OK. I still respect yours. We both want offenders punished, we just disagree on what constitutes an offender.

Now knowing this happens, general disbelief of or dismissal of the victims claims, on top of the trauma experienced by the victim, should they be expected to be perfect defendants? Can you see how maybe they would be hesitant to come forward as "lone gunmen"?

Sorry but "no." No one was murdered here. We're basically talking about people being spoken to and treated in ways they didn't appreciate. It's happened to me countless times. I never made a case of it.

Seeing how woman are blamed for the attacks, I think the rules are a little different.

I do not.

I don't think Cosby opened the floodgates in wrongful accusations, i think Cosby opened the floodgates on calling out predatory behaviour and showed women that they are not alone.

We won't completely agree but we don't need to. Thank you for your response and perspective.

I hope this helps you understand my position, which I also understand can seem unfair or hypocritical. (though I'm adamant in thinking that directors are precious angels. Give me a shot! I'll prove I can do it! )

 

[John Dirk]

Whait a minute, John you think harassment is not illegal?

What in the bleep

I do. Try to prosecute it. It's disgusting but impossible to prove.

 

[John Dirk]

It is, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

"In most modern legal contexts, sexual harassment is illegal. As defined by the United States' Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), "It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex." Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. The legal definition of sexual harassment varies by jurisdiction. Sexual harassment is subject to a directive in the European Union.[2] Sexual harassment constitutes an unlawful employment practice in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal equal employment opportunity law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of five protected classes: Race, color, sex, religion and national origin."

Sure but when we're talking about legality we also need to discuss the ability to prosecute. This is not an American [or EU] history discussion board. Even as a non lawyer, I can all but guarantee, no one will be prosecuted in these latest rounds of accusations. Not because they're {necessarily] innocent but because there will be insufficient proof. Had the "victim's" brought their cases sooner it might be different.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Sure but when we're talking about legality we also need to discuss the ability to prosecute. This is not an American [or EU] history discussion board. Even as a non lawyer, I can all but guarantee, no one will be prosecuted in these latest rounds of accusations. Not because they're {necessarily] innocent but because there will be insufficient proof. Had the "victim's" brought their cases sooner it might be different.

Well, who's arguing that point?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

[deleted by author]

 

[Robert Crawford]

I kind of think this discussion has gone off the rails.

 

[John Dirk]

Well, who's arguing that point?

Not me but I will argue that it's wrong to convict without proof.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Not me but I will argue that it's wrong to convict without proof.

Again, who on this board is saying that.

 

[John Dirk]

Again, who on this board is saying that.

I can see that the consensus here disagrees with my position. Healthy dialogue is all I ever wanted. It's been a great discussion.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I can see that the consensus here disagrees with my position. Healthy dialogue is all I ever wanted. It's been a great discussion.

I'm fine with having a great discussion, but, I'm confused to what you're trying to discuss here. I don't see anybody saying that many of these accusations are not too late for prosecution nor that anybody should be convicted without any evidence of wrong-doing.

Frankly, I think many of us have been fatigued by all of these accusations that are being played out in the court of opinion. We've been discussing these allegations for over four months now with no end in sight as accusations towards new individuals appear almost every day.

 

[John Dirk]

I'm fine with having a great discussion, but, I'm confused to what you're trying to discuss here. I don't see anybody saying that many of these accusations are too late for prosecution nor that anybody should be convicted without any evidence of wrong-doing.

I'm exhausted in this context. You'll have no further problems from me unless provoked.

 

[TonyD]

Provoked. come on man what are you talking about.

 

[Sam Posten]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks