Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**cuda1179**

Ouze wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
[Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.

I think you have a few things mixed up here.

Police don't file charges at all in the sense that you're saying - that's for prosecutors to do.

I also think you're confusing police officers and mandatory reporters. Mandatory reporters are not required to be law enforcement but as you say they are obligated to report abuse that they see, reasonably suspect, or have reported to them and can be held liable if they do not.

The reason I point out this distinction isn't pedantry, but that last point: the police absolutely cannot be held criminal liable for failing to protect. There is well established case law at this point that the police have no responsibility to protect any one specific citizen.

I researched this a bit, and as it turns out, it looks like we are both wrong somewhat. Police can not be required to physically protect you, however, many states do have laws requiring police to take statements from sexual assault victims and to file when reasonable belief exists. Some of these states have also have limited Prosecutorial Discretion on whether or not to bring these charges when the victim is a minor. At least in Illinois police failure to take a statement about sexual assault is a legal violation.

**A Town Called Malus**

cuda1179 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
[Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.

I think you have a few things mixed up here.

Police don't file charges at all in the sense that you're saying - that's for prosecutors to do.

I also think you're confusing police officers and mandatory reporters. Mandatory reporters are not required to be law enforcement but as you say they are obligated to report abuse that they see, reasonably suspect, or have reported to them and can be held liable if they do not.

The reason I point out this distinction isn't pedantry, but that last point: the police absolutely cannot be held criminal liable for failing to protect. There is well established case law at this point that the police have no responsibility to protect any one specific citizen.

I researched this a bit, and as it turns out, it looks like we are both wrong somewhat. Police can not be required to physically protect you, however, many states do have laws requiring police to take statements from sexual assault victims and to file when reasonable belief exists. Some of these states have also have limited Prosecutorial Discretion on whether or not to bring these charges when the victim is a minor. At least in Illinois police failure to take a statement about sexual assault is a legal violation.

But the victim can refuse to give a statement.

**feeder**

He's back.

I honestly thought he would lay low for longer.

**LordofHats**

To be fair he gave a better effort at saying he was sorry than most. I’m all for punishing the guilty and public shunning to enforce social change but those shouldn’t be life sentences. Certainly I think reparations should be made to victims but I don’t expect the guy to hide in a corner wallowing in shame for the rest and of his life. Shunning abusers forever is one sure way to ensure perpetual division without any form of reconciliation and down that road human decency doesn’t fair any better than it does in an environment of cover ups and hush money.

Don’t do it again and don’t be an ass about being called out on it and let forgiveness reign and all that so long as he’s actually sorry. Forgiveness is a great virtue and all but it doesn’t demand stupidity toward repeat offenders.

**DarkTraveler777**

LordofHats wrote:
To be fair he gave a better effort at saying he was sorry than most. I’m all for punishing the guilty and public shunning to enforce social change but those shouldn’t be life sentences. Certainly I think reparations should be made to victims but I don’t expect the guy to hide in a corner wallowing in shame for the rest and of his life. Shunning abusers forever is one sure way to ensure perpetual division without any form of reconciliation and down that road human decency doesn’t fair any better than it does in an environment of cover ups and hush money.

Don’t do it again and don’t be an ass about being called out on it and let forgiveness reign and all that so long as he’s actually sorry. Forgiveness is a great virtue and all but it doesn’t demand stupidity toward repeat offenders.

C.K.'s apology and ownership of his wrong doing seemed earnest to me. From memory of his apology he admitted outright what he did, and acknowledged that he was blind to the power structure he was abusing. I don't know what more can be done in the apology department. He lost his show, a movie that was about to premier was cancelled and he hasn't performed in almost a year, so he has paid a literal price for his actions too. I very much doubt his career will return to the heights it reached prior to his admission-especially since he passed off as rumors his bizarre antics for years-I'd understand people having difficulty reconciling that aspect of the story with his apology and moving forward. Still, I think he has enough of a fan base willing to forgive him and, if he can fly right, will embrace his new work.

**Mario**

From the article about C.K.'s return: The performance was unannounced.

That's, maybe, not the best was to re-start his career when "unannounced performances" (of a different type) were what got him into trouble in the first place :/

**LordofHats**

Mario wrote:
From the article about C.K.'s return: The performance was unannounced.

That's, maybe, not the best was to re-start his career when "unannounced performances" (of a different type) were what got him into trouble in the first place :/

Dat sick burn doh.

Take that act on stage Mario

**DarkTraveler777**

LordofHats wrote:
Mario wrote:
From the article about C.K.'s return: The performance was unannounced.

That's, maybe, not the best was to re-start his career when "unannounced performances" (of a different type) were what got him into trouble in the first place :/

Dat sick burn doh.

Take that act on stage Mario

But then the audience gave him an ovation after, so I guess you could say they liked how he finished. They were shocked that he came at all, but still rose to the occasion to applaud his efforts. Okay, I think I am done with dick jokes.

So, the Argento story takes another turn. It looks like McGowan's current partner, model Rain Dove, is the one who gave police Argento's texts.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rain-dove-rose-mcgowan-reveals-partner-took-texts-asia-argento-police-235903270.html

Asia Argento, an outspoken advocate of the #MeToo movement and a Harvey Weinstein accuser, recently denied that she sexually assaulted former co-star Jimmy Bennett when he was 17 years old and she was 37. However, shortly after her denial, text messages that were reportedly Argento’s were leaked to TMZ, which seem to support Bennett’s accusations against the actress.

On Monday, actress and fellow proponent of #MeToo, Rose McGowan, released a statement that named model and activist Rain Dove as the person who brought the incriminating text messages between Argento and Dove to the police.

Dove is a 28-year-old model, actor, and activist. Recently, Dove appeared in Refinery29’s produced web series on Facebook, Strangers.

In her statement, McGowan says that she introduced Argento to Dove — the “being [she’s] been dating” — after the death of Argento’s boyfriend Anthony Bourdain. Together, McGowan, Dove, and Argento visited Berlin, where Argento “mentioned that she was being extorted for a large sum of

money every month by someone who was blackmailing [Argento and Bourdain] with a provocative image.” Neither McGowan nor Dove knew at the time that the person was now 22-year-old Bennett.

Dove, who goes by the “they” pronoun, continued to text with Argento after their meeting, according to McGowan. “They said that they had been texting with Asia and that Asia had revealed that she had indeed slept with Jimmy Bennett. Rain also shared that Asia had stated that she’d been

receiving unsolicited nudes of Jimmy since he had been 12,” McGowan states.

Dove informed McGowan that they wanted to take the text messages to the police. “An hour after our conversation was finished, Rain Dove confirmed that they had turned over the texts and were in conversation with officers. Almost 48 hours later, the texts were in the press.”

On Wednesday, Dove wrote a tweet seemingly aimed at Argento, stating, “Friend, family, acquaintance it doesn’t matter when it comes to justice — you do not get special treatment.”

+1 Awesomeness to Rain Dove for that final statement!

**feeder**

In a somewhat related story, one of the 'hackers' (phishing scam really) from the infamous "Fappening" event was sentenced to 8 months in jail.

**A Town Called Malus**

Good. That kind of invasion of people's privacy is disgusting.

**DarkTraveler777**

8 months seems kinda light in my opinion. Though, I'd imagine his attorney fees are crippling at this point and he has had almost four years of legal battles so that is something, I guess. Still, if my privacy was violated in the way he violated others I'd want more than a slap on the wrist for the perpetrator.

**cuda1179**

Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.

**A Town Called Malus**

cuda1179 wrote:
Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.

Not defending the people who steal peoples private data, proceeds to blame the people whose private data was stolen.

"I'm not defending bank fraud, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores their card details online? It just seems like a total invitation to lose all your money."

**feeder**

The Cloud is super secure. Super secure, unless you fall for a phishing scam.

**beast_gts**

cuda1179 wrote:
Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.

In most cases, it's photos they've taken on their iPhone and not realised they're automatically 'backed-up' to the cloud.

**BobtheInquisitor**

How much time should people dedicate to studying computer security before they no longer deserve to have their privacy violated? Also, what further lifestyle restrictions are necessary to deserve protection of the law?

**cuda1179**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.

Not defending the people who steal peoples private data, proceeds to blame the people whose private data was stolen.

."

I'm not blaming the victim. I'm just saying people should be a little more aware of reality. It's like saying "don't walk alone at night in a bad neighborhood".

**Kilkrazy**

You are blaming the victim.

You're not saying this happened because someone committed a crime, you're saying it happened because the victim didn't protect their self from being attacked by criminals.

That is blaming the victim.

**Steve steveson**

cuda1179 wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.

Not defending the people who steal peoples private data, proceeds to blame the people whose private data was stolen.

."

I'm not blaming the victim. I'm just saying people should be a little more aware of reality. It's like saying "don't walk alone at night in a bad neighborhood".

Not only is it victim blaming, but you also don’t understand what “the cloud” is. Your saying the equivalent of “if you don’t want to get mugged don’t go outside ever”. Apples cloud is about as secure as it gets. Nothing wrong with keeping anything on it. These people were victims of fraud. Fraud anyone could have fallen victim to. Perhaps we would not all have nude photos to take, or care if we did, but we all have something valuable online. Card details, banking, personal information. Very few in industrialised countries now live totally without putting personal informatikn online.

**cuda1179**

Steve steveson wrote:
[ Fraud anyone could have fallen victim to. .

And right here is what I'm talking about. It is something that ANYONE could fall for.

The difference between credit card info and nudie pics are that if your credit card info is breached there is a way to rectify the situation. Not so much with pictures.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
You are blaming the victim.

You're not saying this happened because someone committed a crime, you're saying it happened because the victim didn't protect their self from being attacked by criminals.

That is blaming the victim.

So, by your definition, telling a college coed she needs to not drink from strange cups at parties is also victim blaming?

**NinthMusketeer**

Calling her an idiot who is inviting herself to be raped would be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cuda1179 wrote:
Not that I am defending the Fappening, but seriously, what kind of idiot stores nudie pics of themselves on the cloud? It just seems like a total invitation to be humiliated.

**cuda1179**

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXr6D3NSg4M

Yeah, this basically sums it up.

**Kilkrazy**

cuda1179 wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
[ Fraud anyone could have fallen victim to. .

And right here is what I'm talking about. It is something that ANYONE could fall for.

The difference between credit card info and nudie pics are that if your credit card info is breached there is a way to rectify the situation. Not so much with pictures.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
You are blaming the victim.

You're not saying this happened because someone committed a crime, you're saying it happened because the victim didn't protect their self from being attacked by criminals.

That is blaming the victim.

So, by your definition, telling a college coed she needs to not drink from strange cups at parties is also victim blaming?

If you are saying that is the cause of date rape, you're blaming the victim.

You should blame the criminal instead. Rapists are the cause of rape.

**cuda1179**

Kilkrazy wrote:
[
If you are saying that is the cause of date rape, you're blaming the victim.

You should blame the criminal instead. Rapists are the cause of rape.

Please watch the previously linked youtube video. I'm not saying that a perpetrator isn't to blame. They are, totally. What I am saying is that precautions should be taken.

Maybe I'm just an old fogy that preferred the days of Polaroid pics hidden in the back of a drawer.

**Kilkrazy**

Of course people should take precautions, but if a crime happens the criminal should be held wholly responsible.

Blaming the victim isn't a PC-gone-mad SJW slogan, it is a recognition of the fact that whenever we look at a crime, and say it was partly because the victim performed or failed to perform some particular behaviour, we reduce the burden of responsibility of the criminal.

I'm not attacking you personally, and I'm sorry to have given that impression. I am just trying to point out this important idea that we should focus on the criminal.

**cuda1179**

Hey, in a perfect world a woman should be able to walk through Hell's Kitchen at 3am wearing nothing but high heels and a pair of pasties, double fisting tubes of lube.

Anyone harasses her is in the wrong.

I just don't believe that saying that forethought is necessary takes anything away from a victim or lessens the responsibility of the perpetrator.

Or, maybe it does, depending on the intent of how it is worded.

**NinthMusketeer**

Cuda's opinion displayed above:

Woman who drinks at a frat party is an idiot who is inviting being raped. Saying that is just calling on her to take responsibility.

**Steve steveson**

cuda1179 wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
[ Fraud anyone could have fallen victim to. .

And right here is what I'm talking about. It is something that ANYONE could fall for.

The difference between credit card info and nudie pics are that if your credit card info is breached there is a way to rectify the situation. Not so much with pictures.

Not if you get your identity stolen there isn't. ID theft is very very hard to fix. You can put in mitigating measures, but you cannot every get full control back, and it is a total nightmare to deal with. Once your data is out there it is out there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cuda1179 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
[
If you are saying that is the cause of date rape, you're blaming the victim.

You should blame the criminal instead. Rapists are the cause of rape.

Please watch the previously linked youtube video. I'm not saying that a perpetrator isn't to blame. They are, totally. What I am saying is that precautions should be taken.

Maybe I'm just an old fogy that preferred the days of Polaroid pics hidden in the back of a drawer.

It's not like these people posted their pictures on instagram. They had them in apples cloud. It is secure. It's a lot more secure than putting them in the back of a draw. That risks someone breaking in to your house and steeling them, something that has happened in the past. The only failing I can see on the part of the victim here is that their security advisers (that they will have, being celebrities) need to take IT security as seriously as they do personal security. That does not make it their fault, just a lesson learned.

**cuda1179**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Cuda's opinion displayed above:

Woman who drinks at a frat party is an idiot who is inviting being raped. Saying that is just calling on her to take responsibility.

Are you insinuating women shouldn't be careful with drinking random cups at a party?

There is a difference between being a total victim and being a victim due to circumstances of your own creation. If you die in a car crash because of circumstances beyond your control, it's horrible. If you die because you didn't wear your seatbelt and were texting, it's also horrible and you didn't deserve it, but you also should have known better.

**Steve steveson**

There is a difference. Dieing in a car crash because you were not looking where you are going (texting) is not the same. That’s like falling off a building because you are drunk. Not caused by the actions of others. Being drunk does not cause others to rape you. Having nude pictures stored in a secure file online does not cause people to steal them. Texting whilst driving does cause you to not look where you are driving. In that case the person is the perpetrator of a crime not the victim.

And he didn’t say “random cups”. Your changing what has been said to put weven more blaim on the victim.