Sexual Harassment

[Tornado]

Since the current in thing in Hollywood is now to publicly shame anyone who has ever had anything to do with someone accused of a sexual crime until they renounce working with that person (because #metoo), even if the accusations was a he-said/she-said decades ago and have been known since the beginning, I wonder if Hollywood types will finally stop jumping to the defense of actual-convicted-statutory-rapist Roman Polanski

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yeah, it still skews "really :censored:ing creepy" (that's the technical term).

Anyway...

Am I the only one who feels the #metoo movement is leading to the right destination but isn't going about it the right way?

Agreed, it's creepy as hell and the molestation accusation has never been adjudicated so it's an allegation at this point. It's quite the contrast though to see how Woody has been treated these last couple of decades when it wasn't quite so "fashionable" to call men out for their their missteps and missbehaviours however small, or large, they may be. Even in the last couple of years, after the molestation allegations surfaced, Woody has been publicly praised by such Hollywood royalty as Blake Lively, ScarJo, Kate Winslet and Diane Keaton. It's hard to imagine anyone else in Hollywood getting such a free pass had they been shackled with allegations of child molestation on top of the creepiness of marrying your long time partner's adopted daughter. I can see the latter being something people would overlook when it comes to a working relationship, they were both consenting adults after all, but I can't see anyone currently in Hollywood surviving even an allegation of molesting a child in 2018. Several careers are in tatters for far less these days.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Am I the only one who feels the #metoo movement is leading to the right destination but isn't going about it the right way?

If it creates an environment where sheer power isn't enough to protect the bad guys (or girls) from retaliation then it's a good thing overall.

What's immensely important is that we continue to recognise innocence without proof of guilt and that every accusation is treated on a sensible case-by-case basis. I fear that the press and certain movement groups are too quick to assume guilt by default, that's not a good thing.

 

[Whitestar]

Amazon fires Transparent star Jeffrey Tambor after sexual harassment investigation

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/15/...effrey-tambor-sexual-harassment-investigation
http://deadline.com/2018/02/jeffrey...n-series-harassment-investigation-1202290473/

He says the "accusations have NEVER been revealed or discussed directly with me or anyone at Amazon." Does that mean his version of the incidents wasn't heard in the investigations?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Amazon fires Transparent star Jeffrey Tambor after sexual harassment investigation

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/15/...effrey-tambor-sexual-harassment-investigation
http://deadline.com/2018/02/jeffrey...n-series-harassment-investigation-1202290473/

He says the "accusations have NEVER been revealed or discussed directly with me or anyone at Amazon." Does that mean his version of the incidents wasn't heard in the investigations?

This is the manifestation of the attitude that it's ok if a few innocent people suffer consequences so long as most of the accused are actually guilty. I don't know if Tambor is innocent of any crime or not, but to me the key element in the story is that he claims he has no idea what the specific accusations are and neither he nor Amazon have been privy to the "investigation" and he's been summarily tried and convicted in the sense that he's now out of what I assume was an enjoyable and lucrative acting role for which he's won awards, and his career will likely suffer going forward. Indeed his career might be over. And he has no idea what the accusations are!!! "Sir, are you now or have you ever been a sexual harasser?". "We can't let this straight guy take down our trans show!!!" Senator Joe would be proud.

This is what happens when we think it's ok for innocent people to be accused of heinous crimes because of the "greater good". The standards for guilt become lax. Things are done in secret instead of in a court of law where they belong. Judgment is passed, consequences doled out and all without ever being able to face your accuser.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is the manifestation of the attitude that it's ok if a few innocent people suffer consequences so long as most of the accused are actually guilty. I don't know if Tambor is innocent of any crime or not, but to me the key element in the story is that he claims he has no idea what the specific accusations are and neither he nor Amazon have been privy to the "investigation" and he's been summarily tried and convicted in the sense that he's now out of what I assume was an enjoyable and lucrative acting role for which he's won awards, and his career will likely suffer going forward. Indeed his career might be over. And he has no idea what the accusations are!!!

In fairness he knew what the original allegations were when he issued his apology - he just iterated that his actions weren't meant as they were interpreted. Lysette disagreed and the employer decided to exercise their right not to include him in the next series (or season, or whatever they're called nowadays). It's later allegations that he claims he wasn't given the details of but given the circumstances of the earlier claims it doesn't really matter.

 

[TexRex]

False accusations need to be punished as abuse, especially when alot of the damage can already be done before the court of law is involved.

Accountability still must exist no matter what the situation.

Should the innocents that have been subjected to the false accusations bear the burden of fixing the dysfunctional system? If so, why?

 

[mustafur]

Should the innocents that have been subjected to the false accusations bear the burden of fixing the dysfunctional system? If so, why?

What?

It's already existed as a scenario many times already we can see the damage it's done without being involved. It's the public that has to pressure the law makers to change the laws for the public they serve.

 

[TexRex]

What?

It's already existed as a scenario many times already we can see the damage it's done without being involved. It's the public that has to pressure the law makers to change the laws for the public they serve.

What about the companies that unload the accused without launching an investigation of their own or being privy to the results of an investigation that someone else has supposedly launched?

They're probably concerned inaction will be held against them by the public and their bottom line will suffer. Is that cause to shoot first and not bother asking questions?

Accusers accuse, regardless of the channels used. The appropriate action would be learning every detail that can be known; seeing every angle that can be seen.

 

[mustafur]

That would be a US labour issue then, in Australia it's illegal for employers to fire people without due cause(unproven allegations do not count) or financial reasons.

 

[Imari]

That would be a US labour issue then, in Australia it's illegal for employers to fire people without due cause(unproven allegations do not count) or financial reasons.

Sorta kinda. While you're technically correct, there are a whole litany of ways that a company can legitimately get rid of a person if they wish to. It's more difficult than the US where you can just tell people to get out, but it's not terribly difficult to get rid of people if you wish.

You'd be surprised what sort of things can be terminable infractions when the boss is actually looking to axe you, or positions can become somehow not necessary to the operation of the business, and that's notwithstanding the good old "resign quietly now or we'll make your job so miserable you'll be gone in a month without the compensation we're offering now".

 

[mustafur]

Sorta kinda. While you're technically correct, there are a whole litany of ways that a company can legitimately get rid of a person if they wish to. It's more difficult than the US where you can just tell people to get out, but it's not terribly difficult to get rid of people if you wish.

You'd be surprised what sort of things can be terminable infractions when the boss is actually looking to axe you, or positions can become somehow not necessary to the operation of the business, and that's notwithstanding the good old "resign quietly now or we'll make your job so miserable you'll be gone in a month without the compensation we're offering now".

When its TV level news worthy though the employer tends to just suspend them with pay until they are proven innocent and or guilty, afterwards though you don't really hear about it so ill assume the workplace would be pretty hostile(if they are proven not guilty).

 

[Imari]

When its TV level news worthy though the employer tends to just suspend them with pay until they are proven innocent and or guilty, afterwards though you don't really hear about it so ill assume the workplace would be pretty hostile(if they are proven not guilty).

I'll be shocked if Barnaby Joyce is still in politics in six months. They'll force him out, you can already see the first moves being made. He'd be gone already if it wasn't more beneficial to the party to find a cleaner way to do it.

 

[mustafur]

I'll be shocked if Barnaby Joyce is still in politics in six months. They'll force him out, you can already see the first moves being made. He'd be gone already if it wasn't more beneficial to the party to find a cleaner way to do it.

Oh, He goone.

 

[Touring Mars]

Apparently it’s now Woody Allen who finds himself in the crosshairs and the people involved in his latest film are taking the moral high ground.

Surely people really aren’t this blind? I mean, the guy has had several allegations over the years and married his adopted daughter.

It was actually his wife Mia Farrow's adopted daughter from her previous marriage which would make the current Mrs. Allen his former stepdaughter. Farrow and Allen were never legally married. Farrow's other daughter Dylan has accused Allen of molesting her as a child. Mia Farrow found out about the affair between Allen and her adopted daughter by finding nude photographs of her in Allen's apartment.

Moses Farrow has given a brutal but exceptionally brave account of the physical and psychological abuse that he and his siblings suffered as children... at the hands of his mother, Mia Farrow.

https://mosesfarrow.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

He even points out that it was Farrow herself who suggested that Allen spent more time with her 20-year old adopted daughter, Soon-Yi - but it is hardly surprising, given the abusive nature of Farrow herself, that the relationship between Allen and Soon-Yi developed into something greater.

He also points out that three of his siblings (all of them Mia Farrow's adopted children) are dead, two by suicide and another dying in poverty aged 35... one of those suicides was never publicly acknowledged. Compared and contrast that to Soon-Yi, who has now been married to Woody Allen for 21 years...

 

[Liquid]

Morgan Freeman in the crosshairs now, apparently.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Moses Farrow has given a brutal but exceptionally brave account of the physical and psychological abuse that he and his siblings suffered as children... at the hands of his mother, Mia Farrow.

https://mosesfarrow.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

He even points out that it was Farrow herself who suggested that Allen spent more time with her 20-year old adopted daughter, Soon-Yi - but it is hardly surprising, given the abusive nature of Farrow herself, that the relationship between Allen and Soon-Yi developed into something greater.

He also points out that three of his siblings (all of them Mia Farrow's adopted children) are dead, two by suicide and another dying in poverty aged 35... one of those suicides was never publicly acknowledged. Compared and contrast that to Soon-Yi, who has now been married to Woody Allen for 21 years...

Jeezus what a horror show. I honestly had no idea. One could make the argument that Soon-Yi might have chosen the best option available to her at the time to get away from what looks like an awful situation.

 

[Touring Mars]

Morgan Freeman in the crosshairs now, apparently.

The parole board at Shawshank must be feeling pretty silly right now...

 

[Liquid]

The parole board at Shawshank must be feeling pretty silly right now...

Is it even possible?

 

[ryzno]

Weinstein set to turn himself in today.

 

[Northstar]

So Morgan Freeman has reached the “creepy grandpa” part of his life? That’s a shame.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So Morgan Freeman has reached the “creepy grandpa” part of his life? That’s a shame.

I saw only one video of him flirting with an interviewer. She seemed to be enjoying it. I presume there must be much more than that, but, if that's all there is, it's pretty weak IMO.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I saw only one video of him flirting with an interviewer. She seemed to be enjoying it. I presume there must be much more than that, but, if that's all there is, it's pretty weak IMO.

Indeed, if that's all there is. Unfortunately it seems like that isn't all there is but (as ever) we'll have to wait and see what's true and what isn't. Whatever happens I don't expect Freeman will be found to have reached Cosby-Tier Creepy.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know if this belongs here, but it seemed like the best place for it. Olivia Munn apparently refused to promote a movie based on the fact that a convicted sex offender was in the film. He had been convicted and served time prior to being in the film. Once Fox new about the conviction and Olivia Munn's protest, they yanked his scene.

In the article she says "We all worked really, really hard, and I wouldn't be able to morally stand behind a movie that had this guy in there."

Ok hold your horses for just a sec. Do we have to make sure that convicted sex offenders never work again? Does this extend to work outside of art? Like, I can't stand behind this new home construction morally because one of the contractors was a registered sex offender? Or is the danger only to actors, such that if you're a convicted sex offender you will not be able to act again because nobody can stand behind the product morally?

Is it retroactive? Do we have to burn all copies of the Cosby show and Cosby's standup routines? Are we allowed to enjoy Michael Jackson's music? Or does his alleged collection of child porn render that impossible? What if the music was produced prior to the release of the information about the person. Can we like it then? But what if we didn't hear the music until after we knew that the person was a predator? Can we like it then? What if the music was created after the person was convicted? Can we like it then? Is it immoral to like it?

From a human rights perspective of morality, there is of course no issue. As long as nobody is forcing you against your will to watch the movie, act in the movie, etc. etc., there's no problem. But there is a weird impulse, especially recently with actors on screen, to think that because a person is in a movie that somehow the movie itself and the people acting in it are promoting that person's character and endorsing their life decisions. As best I can tell, it's just a work of art that needs to be taken at face value.

If Olivia Munn wants to make sure she's not doing a movie with any convicted felons (I wonder if this extends to behind the camera roles), she needs to include that with her contract. Otherwise she should probably be aware that some of the people she works with have criminal histories, and have presumably served their time, worn their ankle bracelets, and gone through their neighborhood with their scarlet letter (that's just supposed to be evocative, not a suggestion that I condone their behavior).

 

[DesertPenguin]

I don't know if this belongs here, but it seemed like the best place for it. Olivia Munn apparently refused to promote a movie based on the fact that a convicted sex offender was in the film. He had been convicted and served time prior to being in the film. Once Fox new about the conviction and Olivia Munn's protest, they yanked his scene.

In the article she says "We all worked really, really hard, and I wouldn't be able to morally stand behind a movie that had this guy in there."

Ok hold your horses for just a sec. Do we have to make sure that convicted sex offenders never work again? Does this extend to work outside of art? Like, I can't stand behind this new home construction morally because one of the contractors was a registered sex offender? Or is the danger only to actors, such that if you're a convicted sex offender you will not be able to act again because nobody can stand behind the product morally?

Is it retroactive? Do we have to burn all copies of the Cosby show and Cosby's standup routines? Are we allowed to enjoy Michael Jackson's music? Or does his alleged collection of child porn render that impossible? What if the music was produced prior to the release of the information about the person. Can we like it then? But what if we didn't hear the music until after we knew that the person was a predator? Can we like it then? What if the music was created after the person was convicted? Can we like it then? Is it immoral to like it?

From a human rights perspective of morality, there is of course no issue. As long as nobody is forcing you against your will to watch the movie, act in the movie, etc. etc., there's no problem. But there is a weird impulse, especially recently with actors on screen, to think that because a person is in a movie that somehow the movie itself and the people acting in it are promoting that person's character and endorsing their life decisions. As best I can tell, it's just a work of art that needs to be taken at face value.

If Olivia Munn wants to make sure she's not doing a movie with any convicted felons (I wonder if this extends to behind the camera roles), she needs to include that with her contract. Otherwise she should probably be aware that some of the people she works with have criminal histories, and have presumably served their time, worn their ankle bracelets, and gone through their neighborhood with their scarlet letter (that's just supposed to be evocative, not a suggestion that I condone their behavior).

Yea, I think she's overreacting too. The guy did his time and what not. Her main issue was that the cast and crew weren't notified of his crime. She's comparing it to when a registered sex offender moves to an area he has to go tell everyone. He never did that and she's so appalled by that notion that she can't promote the film and even demanded (and got) her scene with him removed. Because that has anything to do with it...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't know if this belongs here, but it seemed like the best place for it. Olivia Munn apparently refused to promote a movie based on the fact that a convicted sex offender was in the film. He had been convicted and served time prior to being in the film. Once Fox new about the conviction and Olivia Munn's protest, they yanked his scene.

In the article she says "We all worked really, really hard, and I wouldn't be able to morally stand behind a movie that had this guy in there."

Ok hold your horses for just a sec. Do we have to make sure that convicted sex offenders never work again? Does this extend to work outside of art? Like, I can't stand behind this new home construction morally because one of the contractors was a registered sex offender? Or is the danger only to actors, such that if you're a convicted sex offender you will not be able to act again because nobody can stand behind the product morally?

Is it retroactive? Do we have to burn all copies of the Cosby show and Cosby's standup routines? Are we allowed to enjoy Michael Jackson's music? Or does his alleged collection of child porn render that impossible? What if the music was produced prior to the release of the information about the person. Can we like it then? But what if we didn't hear the music until after we knew that the person was a predator? Can we like it then? What if the music was created after the person was convicted? Can we like it then? Is it immoral to like it?

From a human rights perspective of morality, there is of course no issue. As long as nobody is forcing you against your will to watch the movie, act in the movie, etc. etc., there's no problem. But there is a weird impulse, especially recently with actors on screen, to think that because a person is in a movie that somehow the movie itself and the people acting in it are promoting that person's character and endorsing their life decisions. As best I can tell, it's just a work of art that needs to be taken at face value.

If Olivia Munn wants to make sure she's not doing a movie with any convicted felons (I wonder if this extends to behind the camera roles), she needs to include that with her contract. Otherwise she should probably be aware that some of the people she works with have criminal histories, and have presumably served their time, worn their ankle bracelets, and gone through their neighborhood with their scarlet letter (that's just supposed to be evocative, not a suggestion that I condone their behavior).

Well at least she feels good about it after feeling bad for a whole day. She got a lot of Twitters apparently:
While Munn doesn't accept Black's apology, she said, "I felt the support from online and the news—everybody was very encouraging and made me feel really good—but it was a very lonely, lonely time for me that day. I don't care if it's my movie. I don't care if this movie was going to give me $100 million—it's not worth being quiet over that. My silence is not for sale."

I wonder if Lena Dunham is worried about her future employment. Somehow I doubt it.

 

[TexRex]

Do we have to make sure that convicted sex offenders never work again?

A felony conviction tends to have a lasting effect on the convicted's ability to find employment.

Is it fair? As long as the charges of which an individual was convicted don't have to do with the employment being sought (for example, a sex offense conviction for allegations involving minors as it relates to employment that is more likely to put the convicted in direct contact with minors than average; say, childcare), I don't think there should be significant impact. But the reality is that the implications are more far-reaching than that and it isn't fair.

Why is this example of an issue that's been at play for a very long time deserving of more attention than others?

 

[Danoff]

A felony conviction tends to have a lasting effect on the convicted's ability to find employment.

Is it fair? As long as the charges of which an individual was convicted don't have to do with the employment being sought (for example, a sex offense conviction for allegations involving minors as it relates to employment that is more likely to put the convicted in direct contact with minors than average; say, childcare), I don't think there should be significant impact. But the reality is that the implications are more far-reaching than that and it isn't fair.

Why is this example of an issue that's been at play for a very long time deserving of more attention than others?

Yea I think employers over-react when it comes to felony convictions, but that's their prerogative. As it was Fox's prerogative to hire this guy, and it's Olivia's prerogative to work with him. I brought this particular example up because of how succinctly Olivia put her position. About not being able to morally stand behind the movie if he was in it. It seemed to perfectly encapsulate a position that I find to be untenable.

 

[TexRex]

I brought this particular example up because of how succinctly Olivia put her position. About not being able to morally stand behind the movie if he was in it.

It's a form of protest, and obviously a particularly effective one in this instance. She used her position as someone who likely had the means to promote the movie to a significant degree in order to affect change.

That said, I'm not of the belief she should have a free pass to do this, particularly if she was contractually obligated to provide such promotion despite objecting to being associated with someone found guilty of truly reprehensible behavior...of course I doubt action will be taken at this point because of the optics of such action when the action that was taken against the individual conviction was also largely due to the optics of the matter.

 

[Danoff]

It's a form of protest, and obviously a particularly effective one in this instance. She used her position as someone who likely had the means to promote the movie to a significant degree in order to affect change.

Is it a good change?