The Celebrity Sexual Harassment and Rapists Thread

[David]

13 hours ago, Mr_Danger said:

You know a not guilty verdict doesn’t mean it never happened just as well as an accusation doesn’t mean that it did. However if I was to bet  what was more likely, a bunch of guys lying about being assaulted by the same person or a millionaire getting a case thrown out I know where I’d hedge my bets.

 

12 hours ago, TheScarlettChad said:

So because he was deemed innocent, that means he is? OJ was deemed "innocent" too you know.

The thing is, it's not on Spacey to prove without a shadow of a doubt that he's innocent of the accusations. It doesn't work that way. It's on the prosecution to find him guilty. I think that's lost on a lot of people nowadays.

And if we're now operating at a level where we're simply dismissing any legal outcomes we don't like, then what's the actual point anymore? Why bother going to court in the first place? Because being cleared of accusations will just result in people saying "nah, he probably did it. If I had to hedge my bets I know what I'd be doing."

And that's cool, but you're going on what you read on the internet and in the media. The jury in the case was presented with the actual facts in a coherent manner by two sides of trained, experienced professionals and they reached a verdict. 

And I know, people are entitled to believe what they want. Which is why I made my initial comment. The legal outcome matters not a jot anymore, because if it doesn't fit with the narrative people want, they just dismiss it. Not only in the Spacey case, but we're seeing it more and more now.

The truth is, none of us truly know if he did what he was accused of. We can theorise, and chit chat about what we think, but we don't know. And unfortunately, when you don't know, and the courts can't prove it, surely the individual accused has to be given some benefit of the doubt? If not, then why bother with the legal process to begin with? That's the point I was making.

[SuperBacon]

So can I still watch Glengarry Glen Ross or what?

[Boycie]

1 minute ago, SuperBacon said:

So can I still watch Glengarry Glen Ross or what?

You should. It's a superb film. Don't be defeatist.

[Loki]

58 minutes ago, David said:

 

The truth is, none of us truly know if he did what he was accused of. We can theorise, and chit chat about what we think, but we don't know. And unfortunately, when you don't know, and the courts can't prove it, surely the individual accused has to be given some benefit of the doubt? If not, then why bother with the legal process to begin with? That's the point I was making.

There's something to be said that winning these cases almost doesn't matter - nobody is changing their mind on Spacey as a result of the "not guilty" verdict.  If you thought he was a nonce before this, you still do.  His career is well and truly over despite this, nobody is going to want to put him in their film now.  

Edit: and in the interests of fairness, his accusers now have to live with the tarnish of an unsuccessful prosecution even if they were telling the truth the whole time.

Although perhaps he will flourish in European cinema, which has a different threshold for notoriety.  That seems to be what Johnny Depp is doing, even though he was actually found guilty in his first trial (and then not guilty in a second one, just to confuse issues).

I don't think there's any squaring this circle.  It's both incredibly hard to secure a genuine rape or assault conviction, and simultaneously easy to damage with a false accusation - particularly if the accused is famous (although you risk the litigious response available to rich people).   One just has to hope that the propensity of people to come forward and make accusations now will help to deter people in positions of authority from taking advantage of that in the first place.  I suspect/hope that post MeToo the Hollywood casting couch practice has been eliminated or at least severely curtailed.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Loki

[Chris B]

1 hour ago, David said:

And unfortunately, when you don't know, and the courts can't prove it, surely the individual accused has to be given some benefit of the doubt? If not, then why bother with the legal process to begin with? That's the point I was making.

The legal process was the literal benefit of the doubt. That's the whole point of the legal process. It's why we have it.

The arrest rate is low, the conviction rate is low. An awful lot of rapists benefit from doubt.

As far as anything or anyone else goes, what does 'benefit of the doubt' here mean? Because you seem to be conflating it with 'presumption of innocence'.

[David]

Just now, Chris B said:

The legal process was the literal benefit of the doubt. That's the whole point of the legal process. It's why we have it.

Yes, but it seems like it really makes no difference because once an accusation like this is made, you're pretty much done. It doesn't matter if you did it or not, you're basically fucked. 

Just as much as the conviction rate is low, so is the actual percentage of people who walk away from situations like this completely exonerated. And yes, a lot of rapists do benefit from the lack of convictions, and a lot of people wrongly accused don't benefit from it. And to be clear, I'm not referring to Spacey in particular in this single instance.

as Loki said, if you thought he was a noncey creep before the verdict, you're not changing your mind after the verdict. And if we're honest, with the types of accusations and the amount of time that has passed, he was always going to get a "not guilty" verdict at best. Being in a situation where the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof was the best he was ever going to get because just as difficult as it is to prove absolute guilt in situations like this, it's also difficult to prove absolute innocence. 

People like Spacey end up in a weird no-mans land, where they've not been proven guilty of any crimes but where they are treated with suspicion and as a guilty party moving forward, regardless.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, David said:

And if we're now operating at a level where we're simply dismissing any legal outcomes we don't like, then what's the actual point anymore? [...] The legal outcome matters not a jot anymore, because if it doesn't fit with the narrative people want, they just dismiss it.

He's not in prison, or whatever the penalty for a guilty verdict in this trial would've been, and that's the sole purpose of a court case - not to dictate society's opinions on whether he probably did or didn't do it.

[wordsfromlee]

But should he be allowed to work in a gym now?

(thats how the circle of these thread work, isn't it?)

[Jazzy G]

He's probably had a phone call from Roman Polanski already. 

[LEGIT]

I'm of the opinion Spacey's been found not guilty and as such can only be considered not guilty. It's okay for anyone to choose not to work with him of course, but if people choose to employ him the angry mob shouldn't hound him and his employers. I not all that comfortable with that reaction for guilty people either tbh, but definitely not those found not guilty.

[David]

On 7/29/2023 at 5:52 PM, LEGIT said:

It's okay for anyone to choose not to work with him of course, but if people choose to employ him the angry mob shouldn't hound him and his employers.

But they will. We all know that. 

[BomberPat]

On 7/28/2023 at 3:53 PM, David said:

 

And if we're now operating at a level where we're simply dismissing any legal outcomes we don't like, then what's the actual point anymore? Why bother going to court in the first place? Because being cleared of accusations will just result in people saying "nah, he probably did it. If I had to hedge my bets I know what I'd be doing."

He has been cleared in the eyes of the law, which means he hasn't been sentenced, isn't going to jail, isn't paying a fine or doing any community service. My opinion that he's still a creepy sex pest doesn't carry the authority of the legal system, which should be so obvious a point as to not be worth saying, yet here we are.

[David]

Just now, BomberPat said:

He has been cleared in the eyes of the law, which means he hasn't been sentenced, isn't going to jail, isn't paying a fine or doing any community service. My opinion that he's still a creepy sex pest doesn't carry the authority of the legal system, which should be so obvious a point as to not be worth saying, yet here we are.

Your opinion individually means absolutely fuck all (as does mine). You're correct. But let's not pretend that a groundswell of people with similar viewpoints doesn't have an impact on the likes of Spacey's future endeavours. 

We've seen numerous examples of this kind of thing over the past number of years. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, David said:

But let's not pretend that a groundswell of people with similar viewpoints doesn't have an impact on the likes of Spacey's future endeavours.

Who's pretending that? If people don't want to go to his movies anymore, they won't. If people don't want to invite him to Hollywood events anymore, they won't. None of this was being decided by the courts. That's not what a trial is for.

[BomberPat]

11 hours ago, David said:

We've seen numerous examples of this kind of thing over the past number of years. 

Have we? By whom, and to whom? 

Did angry mobs prevent Woody Allen from making a new film basically every year between 1970 and 2020? It didn't stop Roman Polanski winning three Oscars the year after he fled the country, or continuing to make movies. Taking sexual assault out of the equation and just looking at problematic behaviour in general, Mel Gibson was still winning Oscars for Hacksaw Ridge long after any number of racist, antisemitic and homophobic rants. 

Where exactly are all these cases of men being found innocent in court, or guilty in the eyes of any percentage of the public, being prevented from working?

Edited August 1, 2023 by BomberPat