Who has had their life ruined without real evidence?
Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
Who has been wrongfully accused so far?
Right now, unless the accused admits to the crime, I don't have anything to determine who is telling the truth. When the emphasis from the media is to "believe the victim", I find that very troubling.
I'm not aware of anyone's claims being discredited by evidence or circumstance, but we're not in a setting where that can be determined.
What happened to the accusation against George Takei that caused @Nikhil to go on a homophobic tirade?
Right, but each article often includes a response from the accused, or at least a line that says "we have reached out the representatives of x, and they declined to comment" Or, for the more powerful - they have PR & Legal representatives who are hired to respond appropriately in such situations
So in such a scenario, if you know that you didn't do anything, and these allegations are false - why not stand up for your self in the media, and sue for libel?
So far, nobody has denied their involvement (from what I can see), just denied remembering it taking place - which isn't much better, and more of a deflection than a denial.
I'm not sure about you, but I have a mind to align with someone who can recall accurate details about situations that have happened to them which caused them harm (physical or mental - especially when there is more than one accuser) than someone who apparently doesn't have the capacity to remember anything taking place - and then the inability to not react in order to protect their name.
If someone is lying about you, then you stand up for yourself, even kids know that.
The very fact that the accused aren't standing up for themselves - if so many of them are innocent - tells a story, certainly isn't beyond reasonable doubt, but equally isn't worthy of a crusade against the victims who are apparently lying - which is from what I can see, the main contributions you've made in this thread.
Not everything needs to hold up in court for it to be credible, these victims aren't seeking damage, or money - but rather relief from their mental angst and also the solace in knowing that they aren't alone, and it wasn't their fault.
The accused in return, can't un-earn the money, fame, power & success they've gone onto enjoy - but they do reap what they have sowed for what they have done to the victims, by being limited in their future endeavours.
Bang on. I Believe there will be a trend where the vast majority of these cases will come out as true with some degree of corroborating evidence or admissions from the accused, but we are at a stage where every single person is being painted with the same brush not only to their guilt, but to the degree of their crimes/behaviour. You've accusations of rape and sexual abuse, or multiple systemic incidences of sexual harassment over decades, bundled in with people accused of touching someones bum once, or being fired from parliament for touching someones knee. It's not the right way of going about it, its lynch mob territory. is it fine for every 10 people who are genuinely guilty being punished/ousted that 1 potentially innocent person has their life/career ruined by the court of public opinion?
Most sexual assault/abuse/harassment that has happened to the men & women in your life, are unlikely to hold up in court - and they are unlikely to have evidence of it taking place.
Does that mean that they are lying, and it never happened to them?
Or is it more indicative of an environment where the overwhelming majority of sexual crimes go unpunished, and usually has an adverse effect on the victim, therefore it discourages them going forward through the "correct" procedures?
If everything was equal, and these men & women weren't discouraged from speaking up at the time of the incident taking place - due to various factors - then we wouldn't be in the position we're in now.
But alas, here we are.
Does that mean that they are lying, and it never happened to them?
Or is it more indicative of an environment where the overwhelming majority of sexual crimes go unpunished, and usually has an adverse effect on the victim, therefore it discourages them going forward through the "correct" procedures?
If everything was equal, and these men & women weren't discouraged from speaking up at the time of the incident taking place - due to various factors - then we wouldn't be in the position we're in now.
But alas, here we are.
NYT has a partial list of the accused: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...duct-weinstein.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Fantastic - a comprehensive list, which also includes those who have denied the claims made against them.
I'm certainly not saying everyone is 100% guilty, but everyone certainly has the capacity to maintain their innocence in the media, and in court.
The majority of the accused on this list have accepted responsibility, however.
So i'm not sure why so many still think this is a "witch hunt"/"lynch mob" as if most of the victims are lying.
If that is your standard, them fair enough. I'm not trying to dictate how people should react to allegations in the press. I'm speaking about how said allegations are treated by an arm of society explicitly protected by the 1st amendment, and subsequently has a lot more responsibility than any of us, or Twitter.
I don't think it is wise to say, "if you're not guilty, then this should be how you behave". It's equally unwise to expect victims of sexual abuse to act a certain way for credibility sakes.
I'm not sure how my posts in this thread imply that I believe that accusers are lying. That is absolutely false, and I'd appreciate it if someone pulled me up on this, if in fact I suggested otherwise.
Sexual assault is incredibly hard to prove, but the solution isn't trial by public opinion. What does that then do for those who aren't privileged enough to have an outlet to express their frustrations? We've been hearing about politicians and celebrities in high places. What about undocumented workers, and women in low paying jobs, who can't risk unemployment and are forced to keep mum?
Impossible to say, but I think Jeremy Piven and Robert Knepper are wrongfully accused. As far as I know there has been only one accusation against the pair of them and both of them have vehemently denied it.
For what it is worth (probably not much but it is *something*) Piven passed a polygraph yesterday.
Saying trial by public witch hunt is okay because they can deny it and sue is such a purposefully ignorant viewpoint.
I don't believe any of the accused are innocent (not that it matters) but I'm pretty sure an innocent person and their family could have their lives ruined in this current media storm. Call me old fashioned but i prefer the courts and innocent until proven guilty
I don't believe any of the accused are innocent (not that it matters) but I'm pretty sure an innocent person and their family could have their lives ruined in this current media storm. Call me old fashioned but i prefer the courts and innocent until proven guilty
It's fair to say that polygraph tests aren't admissable evidence in court.
Which begs the question then: in this forum, what means does one have of proving his innocence?
The absence of concrete proof? Not much else is there?
I know polygraph tests aren't admissible evidence in court, however, in this "public trial" period it has to count for something in the eyes of the public. Of course you could argue that Piven is an actor and could *maybe* beat the test.. but..
The reaction isn't the same. It's why Weinstein is in hiding while Franken still has a job.
Dunno, always thought harassment meant persistently doing something. If Gene Simmons made one forward remark, and then after realising it didn't work never did so again, can it really be considered harassment along with the other more serious cases?
More serious cases don't excuse less serious cases.
The bolded part, is pretty much the point of the #MeToo movement - so that everyone can see just how often sexual assault, abuse & harassment happen, to who it happens to, and the extent of which it happens - by everybody sharing their own personal story you are not only removing the stigma associated with being a victim of a sexual crime, but you are providing a platform that exposes everyone to the frequency of it.
The best part of the stories of it happening to celebrities is that what you are seeing is that sexual assault can still happen to you even if you are beautiful, powerful, rich, successful or big & strong (Terry Crews) - it doesn't discriminate.
Also it exposes the people who we otherwise would deem as "good" because they provide us entertainment, and show that they too can be morally wrong despite their public portrayal.
In an ideal world - the court would be the best place to settle these accusations.
However 99% of cases of sexual violence end up with the accused going free, and 13% of victims commit suicide (in the US) - therefore we're far from living in an ideal world.
Which is great, but it still doesn't mean that these allegations amount to a witch hunt for everybody accused.
Also it shows that if you are innocent, then you certainly have the means of standing up for yourself.
But he did the same thing to other women - so it wasn't just once. Curiously, he didn't make the same remarks to other men - why? If it's a joke, then it should apply to everybody surely?
Also "seriousness" is a spectrum that doesn't apply evenly to everybody. Something that can be deemed as harmless to one person, doesn't necessarily mean it's harmless to everybody.
I'm not really on about the seriousness though, more so the definition. I'd still say what Simmons did wasn't really harassment. He should obviously apologise if he hasn't already, and he's clearly a sexist dick, but is there really anything unlawful about it?
Absolutely not, I agree with that. I was just responding to "who has been wrongfully accused?" with two names I believe are - and two names who have forcefully denied it happening as opposed to those who has kept their silence of just sidestepped the issue.
Oh yeah completely, I personally don't understand why you would choose to stay quiet if you knew you were innocent.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...l-assault-by-veteran-costume-designer-1055914
Idk, seems true. I'm not sure why her then-assistant would lie about it.
Idk, seems true. I'm not sure why her then-assistant would lie about it.
Franken still has a job because he's a US Senator, those don't get just taken down based on allegations, in part to protect the citizens he represent and voted for him. If he were still on SNL he'd probably be suspended, and hiding.
The Franken thing bothers me. If he was a sexual harrasser then he should be treated just like any other, but something about it just smells off. I've been waiting to see if other women he's worked with over the years came forward, but instead we just get an unprovable (and on the apparent evidence somewhat quesationable) accusation from a Trump supporter.
I hope its not just political bias making me feel this way. I genuinely do think that if he was guilty he should resign in disgrace, but the whole thing just has the feeling of political ratfecking.
I hope its not just political bias making me feel this way. I genuinely do think that if he was guilty he should resign in disgrace, but the whole thing just has the feeling of political ratfecking.
So far from Franken it only seems he was a participant in someone making a horrible attempt at humour and making his acting partner uncomfortable by being too aggressive with his kiss. Not a sexual deviant more someone who was involved in how male comedians handled women back then.
The reaction to Harvey and Franken was not the same.
Weinstein - Accused by 80 different women of sexual harrassment, sexual assault and rape.
Franken - Accused by one woman (who just happens to be a hard right conservative with a book coming out) of pretending to grope her tits (without actually touching her) and sticking his tongue in her mouth during a rehearsal kiss. He says he doesn't remember events this way, and has called for an ethics investigation.
I see why you put them together, as they're clearly exactly the same..
Franken has just been accused by another woman, who told her friends at the time and reported the assault on Facebook: 'He's a creeper. He just totally molested me.'
You've also misrepresented the original incident. The woman 'knew what Franken was up to' and refused to 'rehearse' the kiss. He grabbed her, kissed her violently against her will, and stuck his tongue in her mouth. As far as the photo is concerned, it's impossible to say whether he ever touched her or not. But it doesn't matter: clearly the intention was to humiliate a woman who had sexually rejected him. The fact that the photo was included in a batch where she would see it says it all.
I didn't say they were the same. Some of the behaviour Weinstein's been accused of is seriously criminal, while, so far, Franken just seems like an obnoxious jerk whose actions are hardly serious enough to involve the law. But the hypocritical language of their responses is very similar.
Edit: Exhibit C
“Franken was clowning around, but it really isn’t funny,” said a source from the shoot. “That’s his tactic, pretend like it’s all a big joke. Arianna was pushing his hands away. He was groping her. There was some fun attached to it, but she wasn’t enjoying it. She definitely told him to stop and pushed him away.”
Last edited:
Link please.
Oh, was that before or after she performed the routine onstage in front of an audience?
The picture shows him leaning over her posing for a photo. It also shows her wearing body armour and apparently asleep. THat is the photographic evidence, and trying to insinuate that something further could have happened is fairly disgusting. They were in a room with numerous other people (not least the photographer) and Franken posed for a dumb, frat boy photo. Stupid? Sure, but let's put it in the context of the actual trip.
Here's a shot of Ms Tweeden during the same USo show sexually assaulting the guitar player:
Is that sexual assault? Or maybe, just maybe is the USO show a deliberately sexualized performance designed to play up to sex-starved GI's away from home, and which Ms Tweeden was not only fully aware of but willingly took part in?
Of course none of this means that if Franken did grab her and forcibly kiss her against her will that he wouldn't have commited sexual assault. He most certainly would have. The problem however is that there are no other witnesses to the alleged assault, and some early signs that make it seem potentially dubious, not least the photographic evidence showing her enthusiastically participating in the kiss routine on stage that she now claims she refused to perform even in rehearsal.
Why don't you just be honest, and admit you put them together because its a cheap way to smear a liberal?
@crappycraperson
I know you were following the Matt Taibi/Mark Ames story, which started long before Weinstein and was based on their own articles/book.
Some huge document has recently been released with interviews of their female coworkers, exonerating both of them. (I've not read it, it's 21 fecking pages). Apparently Mike Cernovich (pizzagate and assorted other things) has been instrumental in spreading the story.
I know you were following the Matt Taibi/Mark Ames story, which started long before Weinstein and was based on their own articles/book.
Some huge document has recently been released with interviews of their female coworkers, exonerating both of them. (I've not read it, it's 21 fecking pages). Apparently Mike Cernovich (pizzagate and assorted other things) has been instrumental in spreading the story.
The really dodgy part is forcing a woman to perform the kiss during rehearsal. That's dodgy as feck, actors do run lines together, but things like kissing or groping aren't done until on stage.
Link please.
Oh, was that before or after she performed the routine onstage in front of an audience?
The picture shows him leaning over her posing for a photo. It also shows her wearing body armour and apparently asleep. THat is the photographic evidence, and trying to insinuate that something further could have happened is fairly disgusting. They were in a room with numerous other people (not least the photographer) and Franken posed for a dumb, frat boy photo. Stupid? Sure, but let's put it in the context of the actual trip.
Here's a shot of Ms Tweeden during the same USo show sexually assaulting the guitar player:
Is that sexual assault? Or maybe, just maybe is the USO show a deliberately sexualized performance designed to play up to sex-starved GI's away from home, and which Ms Tweeden was not only fully aware of but willingly took part in?
Of course none of this means that if Franken did grab her and forcibly kiss her against her will that he wouldn't have commited sexual assault. He most certainly would have. The problem however is that there are no other witnesses to the alleged assault, and some early signs that make it seem potentially dubious, not least the photographic evidence showing her enthusiastically participating in the kiss routine on stage that she now claims she refused to perform even in rehearsal.
Why don't you just be honest, and admit you put them together because its a cheap way to smear a liberal?
All of this is part of a public record if you care to read it.
Tweeden and Franken were part of a troupe performing for US troops in often raunchy skits. She agreed to do the 'kiss' sketch, reasoning that she could turn her head away for the actual kiss. But she saw no reason to rehearse the kiss and told him so. Then he forced himself on her.
Nobody is 'insinuating that something further could have happened' in the photo incident. We don't know what happened before and after that photo was taken and there's no point in speculating about it. The photo could be interpreted as raunchy horseplay between two people - a bawdy joke - IF they had a friendly relationship. But we know that they didn't. She didn't like him, and he bore a grudge for her rejection of his advances. So the picture was taken out of spite. He's saying: 'You may have pushed me away when you were awake, baby, but I still touched you up while you were asleep.' And then made sure she saw the photograph.
The link to the photo shown above in my previous post gives a good account of Franken's behaviour.
https://pagesix.com/2017/11/20/new-...rabbing-arianna-huffingtons-breasts-and-butt/
3 women have come forward recently to allege Piven sexually assaulted them.
Another women was recorded on tape in 2013 saying Piven was behaving inappropriately towards her.
I honestly wouldn't know whether actors rehearse kissing scenes. Is there any particular reason they wouldn't? Isn't the whole point of acting that you're just acting, and there is no sexual intent behind it?
Because it's weird. They also don't use tongues, as Franken allegedly did.
I can think of a few reasons.
1. People still treat those who make allegations as liars, especially if they're a fan or a well known/celebrity friend of the accused. That's why a lot of victims don't come out or are only coming out now that there's some sort of solidarity in terms of the amount of accusations and people willing to speak out about it. People don't see the victims as victims, they see them as opportunists or people jumping on the bandwagon.
2. Political motivations - such as doubting the Roy Moore accuser due to the election being in the next month. Again another reason why those who have been victims won't come out because people immediately start throwing doubts about the veracity of the claims. Political 'witch hunts' are currently in vogue whether they're true or not. Trump and Russia, Hillary and corruption, etc. They're everywhere at the minute according to those who are involved and being accused of something shady.
3. Now that things are in the public eye you've got a lot of people doubting or not understanding what constitutes something worthy of an allegation. Because of the likes of this new wave of allegations and because of things like Operation Yewtree there's a whole host of things done to people that back in the 60/70/80's probably still wasn't really acceptable at face value but much more commonplace and accepted as a general thing that people did, especially those in power. We're relearning what constitutes bad behaviour almost and some things can be accepted as not that bad and some as exceptionally bad but we haven't reset the boundaries yet as a society.
I asked you for a link to this supposed third victim, because I googled and couldn't find any reference. So please provide one.
All you've done there is repeat her accusation. One which raises some questions given that the army escort who was with Franken during that trip said he never left his sight, as visitors to the place were escorted everywhere they went.
How exactly do we 'know' they didn't have a friendly relationship? We know they performed the kiss routine on stage on at least one occasion, which seems a very odd thing for Tweeden to agree to do if she was so repulsed by him. All you're doing there is building your own narrative.
You see what you just did here is what is referred to as ratfecking. Perhaps you are genuinely unaware that you're doing it, but that is exactly what you're doing. Or maybe we should leave Arianna herself to explain why to you..
Why is it weird? It's part of a performance. As for the tongues part, sure that would be bizarre, but then again that just brings us back to the accusation.
There's just no need to kiss when you're rehearsing. The same goes for a lot of physical contact, if the scene includes a slap or a punch you wouldn't do that either. Generally, one of the actors reads the direction then they continue with the lines.