Drain the Hollywood Swamp

tango said:

I don't imagine many people here are lining the pockets of the porn industry.

Click to expand...

Well I would hope you are correct, but I understand that the statistics do not support this hope. And as the old saying goes: For evil to triumph requires only that good men stand by and do nothing!


Pete from Peterborough UK

My thought this morning on the way to work, as the radio news channel was informing me that Dustin Hoffman may have sexually harassed someone twenty years ago, was "where were all of these accusers of all the Hollywood scumbags a few years ago when Cosby was hung out to dry"? Or when a producer admitted that Marlon Brando raped his under-age co-star during the filming for "Last Tango in Paris" - a cut that made it into the film.

Answer: Nowhere.

Hollywood's choice of when to be indignant makes no sense to me.

jsimms435 said:

yes, my wife has watched her share of those Hallmark movies also. Within about 15 minutes you already know how basically they are going to end. Always a happy ending.

Click to expand...

I always watched Doris Day and Rock Hudson cause that was my mom's taste. I watched that as a teen. Then I didn't watch it anymore for years, but a few years ago I watched it on youtube and it made me feel bad. So I asked God if it was good or not to watch. Then I found a youtube video about the wife from Rock Hudson, an innocent woman who they tricked to marry him, so the public wouldn't suspect he was gay. She believed he could be set free by God and their marriage could be healed. Her story was heartbreaking. She said she could not watch those movies of him and Doris Day, so I couldn't either anymore.
It was one big mess then already.

ImaginaryDay2 said:

My thought this morning on the way to work, as the radio news channel was informing me that Dustin Hoffman may have sexually harassed someone twenty years ago, was "where were all of these accusers of all the Hollywood scumbags a few years ago when Cosby was hung out to dry"? Or when a producer admitted that Marlon Brando raped his under-age co-star during the filming for "Last Tango in Paris" - a cut that made it into the film.

Answer: Nowhere.

Hollywood's choice of when to be indignant makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

At least he said sorry. He made a movie about film producers doing that.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAat-T1uhE

Justin Bieber said there was child rape and offering and another guy too. I'm afraid it's controlled by one satanic bunch.

faramir.pete said:

Well I would hope you are correct, but I understand that the statistics do not support this hope. And as the old saying goes: For evil to triumph requires only that good men stand by and do nothing!


Pete from Peterborough UK

Click to expand...

Sure, I know some of the depressing numbers in the statistics. Even so I suspect more people are funding things they might prefer not to think about, than directly giving money to porn producers.

ImaginaryDay2 said:

My thought this morning on the way to work, as the radio news channel was informing me that Dustin Hoffman may have sexually harassed someone twenty years ago, was "where were all of these accusers of all the Hollywood scumbags a few years ago when Cosby was hung out to dry"? Or when a producer admitted that Marlon Brando raped his under-age co-star during the filming for "Last Tango in Paris" - a cut that made it into the film.

Answer: Nowhere.

Hollywood's choice of when to be indignant makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

I must admit I'm often puzzled when someone comes out of the woodwork to make a serious accusation against someone for a crime that allegedly took place a couple of decades back. As someone said further up, the obvious question is "why now?".

It become almost impossible to sensibly determine whether there is any substance to the allegation simply because most people have little memory of what they were doing on any given day 20 years ago. If you were to ask me where I was and what I was doing on November 2, 1997 I'd honestly have no idea. Sure, I could think back to figure where I was working and take a best guess that at 6:30pm I was probably on the train home from work, but maybe that was one of the nights I went out with the guys after work for a few beers - I really don't remember.

I'm not rich and famous so it's unlikely anyone will claim I attacked them at some vaguely defined point in the past, but if that sort of thing ever did happen I wonder how easily I could prove my innocence. And of course in this world of trial by social media even a "not guilty" verdict doesn't stop the mud slinging - "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent", it merely means the prosecution failed to prove guilt and does nothing to stop the chattering about how the accused got away with it thanks to a lack of evidence.

Josiah said:

ON THE ONE HAND, I think it has probably ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE been the case where the powerful have abused the powerless (or less powerful). This happens with sex and everything else for that matter. And yes, groups that oft times are in a less powerful position (women, children, the unborn, the poor, people of color, employees) tend to be victims in disproportionate numbers. I think this is horrible and disgusting. And I think it is the call of all of us (perhaps especially people like ME who are mostly in the "more powerful" category) need to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves (God told us to do that, btw). We are to be instruments of justice.


ON THE OTHER HAND, I'm left scratching my head just a bit when this comes up DECADES after the "act" and tends to be highly selective. And then, from out of nowhere, there jump in dozens more who suddenly - out of the blue - yell "ME, TOO!" Yes..... I understand the weak and powerless are disenfranchized and often fear reporting (I get it), but it creates a very difficult situation. There is a "guilty until you PROVE yourself innocent" legal milieu created by this..... there is a "guilty by the number of accusers" legal milieu here. And since these often happen privately and DECADES ago, it can be impossible for the suddenly accused to PROVE their innocence..... and even if the accused does, he/she has already been condemned (and likely fired or no longer able to work). I'm not sure I know the answer to this, only that I see a problem.


As a result of the RCC's mishandling of sick, terrorist, disgusting agents - MUCH has been done to make SEXUAL issues less common. It brought THAT aspect of abuse into the light (something GOOD has resulted from that horrible chapter). When I started working for my company, a WHOLE LOT of time was spend telling us newbies about sexual abuse issues and the MANY policies now in place. I'm sure it's the same in every company. I remember all the changes in the BSA when all that Catholic Church stuff started to come to light. I know a guy who works in children's theatre - and they have camaras EVERYWHERE, on all the time - to "keep everyone honest" and also so that an accused person will have something objective that might reveal his/her innocence. I suspect ALL of us are going to have cameras in our offices and everywhere, 24/7, pretty soon....

But what I'm missing is why just sex? Why not the cry about the 1.2 MILLION innocent preborn babies horribly, PAINFULLY, murdered every year just in the USA? What about all the innocent elderly ignored and abandoned in nursing homes? Why do some millionaire Hollywood victims get all the attention? Many of the victims of the powerful aren't like 45 year old millionaire actors because they CAN'T call a press conference or write a book or beg for 10 million bucks so they can make a movie starring themselves and "name names" which they won't do otherwise? I think there's something sorely amiss here.


Sorry....



.

Click to expand...

tango said:

I must admit I'm often puzzled when someone comes out of the woodwork to make a serious accusation against someone for a crime that allegedly took place a couple of decades back. As someone said further up, the obvious question is "why now?".

It become almost impossible to sensibly determine whether there is any substance to the allegation simply because most people have little memory of what they were doing on any given day 20 years ago. If you were to ask me where I was and what I was doing on November 2, 1997 I'd honestly have no idea. Sure, I could think back to figure where I was working and take a best guess that at 6:30pm I was probably on the train home from work, but maybe that was one of the nights I went out with the guys after work for a few beers - I really don't remember.

I'm not rich and famous so it's unlikely anyone will claim I attacked them at some vaguely defined point in the past, but if that sort of thing ever did happen I wonder how easily I could prove my innocence. And of course in this world of trial by social media even a "not guilty" verdict doesn't stop the mud slinging - "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent", it merely means the prosecution failed to prove guilt and does nothing to stop the chattering about how the accused got away with it thanks to a lack of evidence.

Click to expand...

I agree..... I'm not sure what to do about it, but we have created a weird milieu that is unfair to all. And I wish we'd get past our idolatry of Hollywood... a LOT of abuse of power happens a whole lot closer to home in situations we can do a whole lot more about.



.

I know this will be a hugely unpopular suggestion in many quarters but I can't help thinking that there needs to be some form of time limit for this sort of claim.

In days gone by it clearly was the case that if you had someone who was the lowest of the low making allegations against someone rich and famous they would be ignored and probably do little more than ensure the weaker party (which was invariably the woman, back then) would find herself more or less unable to work becaue she would be tagged as a troublemaker. So you might have the movie extra dealing with a predatory movie star and pretty much expected to deal with his unwanted advances and more because it's part of the job and hey, if you don't like it there's a line of people waiting to take your place.

I fear today the balance has tipped too far the other way - while it's clearly good that the issue of the rich and powerful being able to silence the weaker merely by virtue of their wealth and fame has at least partly been addressed, it is clearly an unworkable situation where people can make serious allegations from behind a mask of anonymity decades after the alleged incident(s) and then allow the whole "trial by media" process to destroy the reputation of their target.

In England there was discussion some time back about the whole process. At the time (it may still be the case) if a woman made an allegation of rape or sexual assault she remained anonymous while the identity of the man she accused was made public. If the case was thrown out of court based on it lacking any form of merit at all the accuser still retained anonymity while the accused's identity was still all over the media. After one high profile case (I think it was a teenage girl making accusations against a school teacher, thrown out of court because it became clear that the accused had done absolutely nothing wrong at all) there was talk that in such cases the identity of the accuser should become public.

Certainly it's difficult to strike the balances between protecting the identity of someone who makes an accusation that simply falls short of the required burden of proof and exposing the identity of someone who makes false accusations, and between identifying a predatory aggressor and protecting the identity of the falsely accused.

tango said:

I know this will be a hugely unpopular suggestion in many quarters but I can't help thinking that there needs to be some form of time limit for this sort of claim. I fear today the balance has tipped too far the other way - while it's clearly good that the issue of the rich and powerful being able to silence the weaker merely by virtue of their wealth and fame has at least partly been addressed, it is clearly an unworkable situation where people can make serious allegations from behind a mask of anonymity decades after the alleged incident(s) and then allow the whole "trial by media" process to destroy the reputation of their target.


Certainly it's difficult to strike the balances between protecting the identity of someone who makes an accusation that simply falls short of the required burden of proof and exposing the identity of someone who makes false accusations, and between identifying a predatory aggressor and protecting the identity of the falsely accused.

Click to expand...

I agree. Difficult as that is.


There is MUCH in all of this that is problematic: The "guilty until you PROVE yourself innocent but it won't matter because you're ruined anyway...." The "pick on big targets with big wallets...." And especially the latest example of a has been child actor who was given enormous breaks and enormous money but destroyed his own life..... DECADES later... insisting, "If you give me TEN MILLION BUCKS so that I can star in my own movie which is the only way I will tell you who abused me" ... well... it's absurd.

I realize there is MUCH unfairness here. But one of them is that power abuse (of all kinds, not just sexual) tends to be private and secretive. Making it legally difficult just by the nature of such abuse. But when our legal system is reversed ("Guilty as sin unless YOU can PROVE your own self to be INNOCENT") it becomes by nature unfair to the accused - especially if the supposed abuse happened DECADES ago. How can the accuse prove what he was doing that day, for example? Even if there were cameras filming, such record won't be available years later. Even if there was a third party in the room, it won't help much if they died years ago or simply have no memory of one particular moment decades earlier..... It probably IS unfair to the hurting victim, too (Dr. Phil could explain why) but then it's unfair for the accused to have to prove themselves innocent when any evidence would have LONG ago been eliminated (irrelevant anyway because their life is ruined by the accusation, not by evidence). Nothin' fair about this.


And again, why the obsession with Hollywood and with sex? I suspect the amount of power abuse in the world happening only in Hollywood and only involving sex is a tiny, tiny percentage of power abuse. Where's the outrage over 1.2 million abortions? Where's the outrage over neglected children? Where's the outrage over elders neglected and abused and abandoned simply because they now lack power, the more powerful can dump on them and get away with it? What about those victims who can't call a press conference and get coverage all over the world, who can't make a ten million dollar movie staring themselves to make their accusations? What about those who are not famous and thus won't get big name famous attorney's to represent them? What about those who won't appear on the Today Show to state their case?



- Josiah



.