Sexual Harassment

[TexRex]

Is it a good change?

I don't know that it's as simple as that.

 

[Imari]

I don't know that it's as simple as that.

I think it probably is. Do we want people in positions of power to use that to further punish people for convictions that they've already served? Sounds a lot like mob justice to me.

IMO, outside of the times when it's directly relevant (as you said, child sex offenders and working with children, etc.) I don't see that a person who has served their time should be required to tell anyone about their past. It seems like a sure way to drive people to the fringes of society where recidivism is far more likely.

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

 

[TexRex]

I think it probably is. Do we want people in positions of power to use that to further punish people for convictions that they've already served? Sounds a lot like mob justice to me.

How much of the decision to take the action that was taken was a result of the protest and not a reaction to the optics surrounding the matter?

 

[TenEightyOne]

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.

He pled guilty to molesting a fourteen year old relative. That sort of crime is different from being a sex offender to high-jinks public exhibitionism... I think I too would question whether or not I wanted to work with him.

With that said the director friend who gave him the scene said he was unaware of the true nature of the offence and that if he had been aware the part wouldn't have been cast, so to speak.

 

[Danoff]

He pled guilty to molesting a fourteen year old relative. That sort of crime is different from being a sex offender to high-jinks public exhibitionism... I think I too would question whether or not I wanted to work with him.

With that said the director friend who gave him the scene said he was unaware of the true nature of the offence and that if he had been aware the part wouldn't have been cast, so to speak.

Ok but... seriously, the guy's not supposed to work? Ok great, he's a scumbag criminal who got caught and went to jail. Now what? He wasn't sentenced to life in prison. If we're not going to let him work, maybe he should have been. BTW I compared him to cosby, not exactly a small offense.

(I don't honestly think that molesting a 14 year old girl should result in life in prison)

 

[Johnnypenso]

He pled guilty to molesting a fourteen year old relative. That sort of crime is different from being a sex offender to high-jinks public exhibitionism... I think I too would question whether or not I wanted to work with him.

With that said the director friend who gave him the scene said he was unaware of the true nature of the offence and that if he had been aware the part wouldn't have been cast, so to speak.

According to the link provided he pled guilty to attempting to lure a 14 year old distant relative, not of molesting her.

EDIT: I researched it myself and apparently there was some touching involved.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ok but... seriously, the guy's not supposed to work?

I'm not saying that but it seems clear that his employer weren't made aware of the nature of his crime (on which I'll correct myself - it may not have been molestation offence) and nor were the other actors in the film, a title that is rated for some children to watch.

According to the link provided he pled guilty to attempting to lure a 14 year old distant relative, not of molesting her.

EDIT: I researched it myself and apparently there was some touching involved.

I'm also a little confused about what exactly he did plead guilty to - nonetheless he did plead guilty to a sexual crime against a child.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not saying that but it seems clear that his employer weren't made aware of the nature of his crime (on which I'll correct myself - it wasn't a molestation offence) and nor were the other actors in the film, a title that is rated for some children to watch.

Presuming that his employer had been made aware of it, and it wasn't in Olivia's contract that she should be notified... do you feel that she has a right to be notified anyway? And are we worried that somehow his offenses are going influence the audience? What exactly is the concern here?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Presuming that his employer had been made aware of it, and it wasn't in Olivia's contract that she should be notified... do you feel that she has a right to be notified anyway? And are we worried that somehow his offenses are going influence the audience? What exactly is the concern here?

That people who are making a film together that can be legally watched by children are working with somebody who's admitted sexual offences against a child. It doesn't seem an appropriate job for him to be doing. I'm not saying he should never work but he is still a registered sex offender (that registration hasn't passed although I don't know the full length of his sentence).

 

[Danoff]

That people who are making a film together that can be legally watched by children are working with somebody who's admitted sexual offences against a child. It doesn't seem an appropriate job for him to be doing.

Specifically why?

Edit:

The usual reason for this sort of thing is that it puts the offender in a position to offend again, either by gaining confidence with children or by simply giving them proximity. I don't see that applies in this case.

Also, I'm not saying that Fox should have kept the scene. I'm saying that it shouldn't be a moral question as to whether one can "stand behind" a movie just because a convicted criminal who has been released back into society played a role in making it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

because a convicted criminal who has been released back into society

His sentence isn't over though - he remains legally bound to be registered for his offence.

Specifically why?

It seems to set a poor example to employ child sex offenders to 'star' (probably just 'appear' in this case) in films that children will be charged to see. It seems that the character was a jogger who hits on the lead female character - that in itself might be seen to be poor casting.

In all an industry that has been beset by claims (and proofs) of sexual misdemeanour is trying to set its house in order. If the actor had been forthcoming with the true details of his offences he wouldn't have been given the job. That's the free speech right of Fox, of course and their right under their due diligence obligations to make 'appropriate' hirings.

 

[Johnnypenso]

His sentence isn't over though - he remains legally bound to be registered for his offence.



It seems to set a poor example to employ child sex offenders to 'star' (probably just 'appear' in this case) in films that children will be charged to see. It seems that the character was a jogger who hits on the lead female character - that in itself might be seen to be poor casting.

In all an industry that has been beset by claims (and proofs) of sexual misdemeanour is trying to set its house in order. If the actor had been forthcoming with the true details of his offences he wouldn't have been given the job. That's the free speech right of Fox, of course and their right under their due diligence obligations to make 'appropriate' hirings.

On what pretense would Fox not given him the job had they known of his offence? Discrimination on the basis of criminal record as a blanket policy has been illegal in the U.S. since the Civil Rights act of 1964. Also, under California Law:

Once the employer makes a conditional offer of employment, it may ask about and consider the applicant’s conviction records. Some records, including arrest records that did not lead to conviction, are off limits at any point in the hiring process (see, “Criminal Records That Employers May Never Consider,” below).

However, before denying employment based on a conviction record, the employer must conduct an individualized assessment as to whether the conviction has a “direct and adverse relationship” with the specific job duties of the position. At a minimum, the employer must consider the following:

• the nature and severity of the offense
• how long it’s been since the applicant committed the offense and served his or her sentence, and
• the nature of the job the applicant is applying for.

For example, suppose an applicant has a conviction related to prescription drug abuse from five years ago, but has completed rehab and been sober since. Depending on the circumstances, the conviction might be a reason to deny employment for a position at a pharmacy but not for a position at a call center.

If he wasn't working with children on the set, how can you reasonably deny him employment given the above (assuming the movie was made in California)?

 

[TexRex]

On what pretense would Fox not given him the job had they known of his offence?

One presumes that Shane Black, the movie's director and person responsible for casting the individual based on a friendship that existed between the two, would simply not have cast him and instead would have relied more heavily on the casting department to fill the role...unless employment discrimination law in Vancouver requires filmmakers to practice nepotism.

https://news.avclub.com/shane-black-apologizes-for-casting-registered-sex-offen-1828868144

Black has now publicly apologized for casting Striegel in his films, stating that, at the time, he believed that he was giving a second chance to a friend who had become wrapped up in a bad situation.

 

[Dotini]

I attended CombatCon18 last month at Las Vegas, staying in all 5 days, and noticed how much the convention organizers, hotel employees, city government and media were at pains to make clear a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment and disruption. This strict enforcement seems to have had the intriguing effect of emboldening the women perambulating about the hotel to dress in extremely skimpy bikinis, very low-cut and see-through clothing, including pants.

 

[Johnnypenso]

One presumes that Shane Black, the movie's director and person responsible for casting the individual based on a friendship that existed between the two, would simply not have cast him and instead would have relied more heavily on the casting department to fill the role...unless employment discrimination law in Vancouver requires filmmakers to practice nepotism.

https://news.avclub.com/shane-black-apologizes-for-casting-registered-sex-offen-1828868144

BC Law doesn't require you to practice nepotism but it does require you not to discriminate against someone because of a criminal conviction:

In British Columbia, the Human Rights Code (RSBC 1996, c 210) section 13(1) provides that “a person must not (a) refuse to employ or continue to employ a person, or (b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment …because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.”

Shane Black:

I apologize to all of those, past and present, I’ve let down by having Steve around them without giving them a voice in the decision.

Perhaps he means that if he put discrimination to a vote they'd all feel better about it.

 

[TexRex]

BC Law doesn't require you to practice nepotism

Gasp.

but it does require you not to discriminate against someone because of a criminal conviction

So when one is under no obligation to practice nepotism, how is anyone--be they someone who suspects they've been subjected to discrimination or be they someone tasked to hold accountable anyone guilty of discrimination--to determine whether discrimination is actually at play or if one simply opted to not practice nepotism?

 

[Imari]

How much of the decision to take the action that was taken was a result of the protest and not a reaction to the optics surrounding the matter?

I was referring to Olivia Munn being in a position of power and using that against the convicted guy. The stuff after that was what any business would do to protect it's brand.

 

[TexRex]

I was referring to Olivia Munn being in a position of power and using that against the convicted guy. The stuff after that was what any business would do to protect it's brand.

Would it have been an abuse of power to decline to work with him had she been made aware of his status prior to working with him? What does one who would have done so do when the work has been done and the result of said work is to be released to the public?

 

[Johnnypenso]

So when one is under no obligation to practice nepotism, how is anyone--be they someone who suspects they've been subjected to discrimination or be they someone tasked to hold accountable anyone guilty of discrimination--to determine whether discrimination is actually at play or if one simply opted to not practice nepotism?

We already know the facts of this case let's not muddle it with hypotheticals. It's flouting the law by mob rule. It's a tricky area due to the nature of the business and I suppose so long as he has been paid no laws have been violated. In an industry that was once subjected to the evils of McCarthyism one would think they would have a better appreciation of the mechanics in play here. Supporting certain causes even at the expense of individual rights is all the rage these days.

 

[TexRex]

We already know the facts of this case let's not muddle it with hypotheticals.

Yeeeeaaahh...

On what pretense would Fox not given him the job had they known of his offence?

 

[Imari]

Would it have been an abuse of power to decline to work with him had she been made aware of his status prior to working with him? What does one who would have done so do when the work has been done and the result of said work is to be released to the public?

It depends whether you think it's reasonable to refuse to work for someone because they once committed a crime that is unrelated to the work you're doing. I'd suggest that if it's illegal to refuse to hire him based on his prior conviction, it's at very least unreasonable to force him out of work for it. I'd suggest that Munn would be free to refuse to work with him herself prior to the fact, but not to get him booted. Afterwards, I think she has to suck it up and be a professional instead of further wrecking someone's livelihood.

Abuse of power is not about when the power is used, it's about how. If she had got him kicked off the project before filming by leveraging her celebrity, I'd say that's the same abuse of power as doing it after the fact.

It's one thing to attempt to defend injustice against people that you have sympathy for. That's easy. It's obviously much harder for you and others when the person has a criminal past. And I guess even harder when the person abusing power is playing the Time's Up card, even though it really has nothing to do with it.

The guy was caught, convicted and served his time. Either people accept that justice has been served and that he's free (within reasonable limits) to get on with his life, or we create a culture where people become pariahs and are forced to live under bridges. I'm not suggesting that he gets a job at a kindergarten, but this feels awfully like Munn using her position to determine that he hasn't been punished enough already so by God she's gonna make sure that creep pays.

 

[TexRex]

If she had got him kicked off the project before filming by leveraging her celebrity, I'd say that's the same abuse of power as doing it after the fact.

Nobody got kicked off of anything with regards to this incident; neither before nor after any particular point. I'd view this whole debacle differently had that been the case, but it isn't.

At a month prior to release of a movie of this scale, all principal photography has been completed and it seems highly unlikely any pickups are needed either. A month away, I'm sure any additional dialogue recording has been completed to account for any sound issues. At a month away, if anything, you're putting the finishing touches on things like sound effects, scoring and color correction.

This guy completed his role in the project and got paid for it. After that completion, the choice was made to cut a scene with him portraying a jogger that repeatedly hits on the character portrayed by Munn. Given that this movie is [presumably] about a hunter from another planet bent on wiping out the dominant native species, such a scene strikes me as rather superfluous--which is probably why the filmmaker took the opportunity to cast a long-time friend in the role. This sort of thing happens all the time, but you tend to not hear about it because there's no controversy surrounding it.

We simply don't know what would have happened had Munn declined to work on the project with him, even in a capacity that doesn't pair the two of them up, because that's not how events transpired.

Was Munn using her means to have a scene in which a character portrayed by a convicted sex offender hits on her repeatedly cut from a movie that she stars in the best course of action? No. Do I understand it? Yes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The guy was caught, convicted and served his time.

He hasn't yet, that's an important point. He's required to remain registered at this time although, as I said before, I don't know how long for.

a crime that is unrelated to the work you're doing

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that acting in a film that can be viewed by children is unrelated to the work he was doing. I would say that the message such an employment sends to child victims is also a very negative one.

 

[Danoff]

He hasn't yet, that's an important point. He's required to remain registered at this time although, as I said before, I don't know how long for.

I don't think you get off the registry. You're branded once you're convicted. That part of his sentencing is somewhat immaterial to the particulars of this case though.

 

[Biggles]

Well, it's an interesting story. But ... what about Roman Polanski?

 

[Danoff]

Well, it's an interesting story. But ... what about Roman Polanski?

Should not be free.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I feel a little sick posting this but it's news nonetheless:
https://pagesix.com/2018/12/01/netw...degrasse-tyson-over-sexual-misconduct-claims/

Networks investigating Neil deGrasse Tyson over sexual misconduct claims

Neil deGrasse Tyson, renowned astrophysicist and host of the popular television show “Cosmos,” is being investigated by National Geographic networks amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

The Web site Patheos reported on Thursday that Dr. Katelyn N. Allers, an associate physics professor at Bucknell, was “felt up” by Tyson after taking a photo with him at a 2009 party.

“After we had taken the picture, he noticed my tattoo and kind of grabbed me to look at it, and was really obsessed about whether I had Pluto on this tattoo or not . . . and then he looked for Pluto, and followed the tattoo into my dress,” Allers told the Web site.

The producers of “Cosmos” said in a statement: “The credo at the heart of ‘Cosmos’ is to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The producers of ‘Cosmos’ can do no less in this situation.”

Note: The Patheos link above leads to another allegation

 

[DesertPenguin]

Maybe now he can stop ruining everything with science

 

[ryzno]

Wow...

 

[DesertPenguin]

Just to be clear I'm joking around