Hollywood and Sexual Misconduct

Tools    





I hear you about Twitter, Dani. I joined it just to see what celebrities say (good things as well as bad) when anything happens and I just got sick of it, fast! It was pretty much all negative. So I unsubscribed from it. Yet, I keep getting notifications in my e-mail, despite the unsubscription. Jerks.
__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."



You ready? You look ready.
Just stay off twitter! Makes me roll my eyes when these complainants do that. Dont their lawyers and promo people strenuously give that advice?
They all be trying to out trumpet da Trump.



Oh if it won't for freedom of speech I would make sure characters like you wouldn't be on a movie site or any site at all. If those are your beliefs you should take a long look in the mirror
People like you make me sick, the only reason you care about this case is because it's a celebrity. In the real world when your 13 year old sister is RAPED, prosecutors and police don't give a flying fig about going to trial. It's about getting a plea bargain putting a person on a list so when they do it again they can throw the book at them.

You bring up a 40 year old case because you are BORED or your VIRTUE SIGNALING to whatever political party you're apart of. You don't give a damn about the victim who wanted to move on from this 20 years ago you only care about political posturing.

You don't know me, you don't the things real people go through with these cases people like you only care about popping off on the internet.



None of that is relevant for assessing Polanski's moral culpability, though.
We aren't dealing with the underlined issues of the Polanski case we're going after people within proximity of Polanski.

The real issue is to repeal statue of limitations on sexual assault cases but we're not doing that. We don't do that because their is a man in a white house right now with 16 women ready to come forward But instead of going after the most powerful man in the free world we're rehashing a 40 year old case.



We aren't dealing with the underlined issues of the Polanski case we're going after people within proximity of Polanski.
Sorry, I don't understand this part. Can you elaborate?

The real issue is to repeal statue of limitations on sexual assault cases but we're not doing that.
I think this may have some unintended side effects, but you could be right. But I'm not sure why that should stop us from saying that Polanski did was clearly wrong, regardless of technical legality. And my understanding was that, even beyond the murky issue of age, consent, and parental oversight, she was effectively drugged anyway.

We don't do that because their is a man in a white house right now with 16 women ready to come forward But instead of going after the most powerful man in the free world we're rehashing a 40 year old case.
"Instead of" implies a mutual exclusivity that doesn't exist. We don't lack for the law enforcement resources to prosecute them both, or the moral resources to condemn them both.

There is no hard cap on the number of things we're allowed to be outraged about, and there's no ethical requirement to only complain about something when every worse problem has been fixed first.

There also isn't a statute of limitations (or double jeopardy) on them, so I'm not sure why the case's age, or the fact that it's been made before, has any bearing on the question.



Sorry, I don't understand this part. Can you elaborate?
We aren't really talking about the case, we're talking about peoples opinions on the case. The victim has wanted to move on for 20 years. If you really want "justice" then just do to Polanski what you do to Terrorists and send a drone strike to murder him.

I think this may have some unintended side effects, but you could be right. But I'm not sure why that should stop us from saying that Polanski did was clearly wrong, regardless of technical legality. And my understanding was that, even beyond the murky issue of age, consent, and parental oversight, she was effectively drugged anyway.

"Instead of" implies a mutual exclusivity that doesn't exist. We don't lack for the law enforcement resources to prosecute them both, or the moral resources to condemn them both.

There is no hard cap on the number of things we're allowed to be outraged about, and there's no ethical requirement to only complain about something when every worse problem has been fixed first.

I disagree strongly with this...we only go after the moral issues with Polanski because he's a celebrity. It's targeted prosecution, same thing they did with Michael Vick. If Polanski wasn't a celebrity or Vick wasn't a celebrity the statutory rape or dog fighting charges wouldn't have stuck. We don't address the moral issues on a macro level only on a micro-level.

You care about Roman Polanski but your tax dollars fun child rape in Afghanistan look up "bacha bazi" and ask yourself why you care about a single case in the 1970's.

We don't touch on our congressional sexual misconduct, the actions of the Catholic Church, the Presidents sexual assault, you can claim their is room to be outraged over it all, I'll believe it when I see it.



We aren't really talking about the case, we're talking about peoples opinions on the case.
What's the distinction? The only way to talk about a case without injecting your opinion is just to robotically enumerate the basic facts without commentary or conclusion, which would be pointless.

The victim has wanted to move on for 20 years.
Unless anyone is proposing we haul her in front of a jury, I'm not sure why this is relevant, or precludes anyone from having an opinion.

If you really want "justice" then just do to Polanski what you do to Terrorists and send a drone strike to murder him.
I don't see how this makes sense as a response on any level.

Logistically: only a handful of people in the world have that power, so even if we wanted to, we can't.

Definitionally: not everyone's idea of "justice" for this crime involves killing the perpetrator.

Ideologically: someone can think somebody deserves punishment without thinking we should administer it outside of the justice system.

I disagree strongly with this...we only go after the moral issues with Polanski because he's a celebrity.
You say you disagree strongly, but the bit after the ellipsis doesn't seem to contradict or address anything you were purportedly disagreeing with. It's just an ad hominem about people's motivation.

It's targeted prosecution, same thing they did with Michael Vick. If Polanski wasn't a celebrity or Vick wasn't a celebrity the statutory rape or dog fighting charges wouldn't have stuck. We don't address the moral issues on a macro level only on a micro-level.
And on a macro level, what kind of message do you think it sends when people deflect or run interference for the wealthy and powerful when they do something awful?

You care about Roman Polanski but your tax dollars fun child rape in Afghanistan look up "bacha bazi" and ask yourself why you care about a single case in the 1970's.
I think comparing the drugging and sexual assault of a minor with the second-order effects of foreign policy (which generally carries with it at least the expectation of some positive outcome) is totally invalid. But putting that aside, sure, media coverage of celebrity crimes is disproportionate. I have no idea why you think that should lead anyone to let Polanski off the hook, though.

We don't touch on our congressional sexual misconduct, the actions of the Catholic Church, the Presidents sexual assault, you can claim their is room to be outraged over it all, I'll believe it when I see it.
Why do you think we don't "touch on" these things? They are discussed (and condemned) all the time, some of them far more than Polanski's case.

Not sure why it matters, anyway. "You should be mad about these other things" is an argument to care about more, not an excuse to care about less.



Just heard about the most obscure figure to get swept up in this Hollywood Sexual Abuse scandal: Allen Baron. The 91 year old writer, director, and star of the 1961 neo-noir Blast of Silence has been accused of sexually harassing his assistant. Obviously, he denies it. Not that this excuses him if it's true, but he's 91, so who knows what state his mind is in. He was a featured guest on The Projection Booth Podcast not too long ago and really came off as an old, pissed off curmudgeon.