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.

... story broke in the USA so I think there might be something in it.


going back a wee bit ...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/louis-cks-movie-premiere-canceled-advance-ny-times-story-1056585

The 'I Love You, Daddy' screening was abruptly axed just hours before it was set to take place.
The New York premiere of Louis C.K.'s upcoming film, I Love You, Daddy, set for Thursday, has been canceled. Reps for the premiere, due to take place at the Paris Theatre, cited "unexpected circumstances."

A source tells The Hollywood Reporter that a New York Times story on the comedian is about to break, and the premiere was canceled in case it is damaging. Additionally, Louis C.K.'s planned appearance on CBS' The Late Show With Stephen Colbert was also canceled, with William H. Macy taking his place.

uh oh.

.. [sidebar} ... that film sounds.... very odd.

Bit too close to the quick perhaps ?

Yep, it's true. Louis CK is the latest creep to be exposed. Wording fully intentional.

Feth sakes. I really like his work.

Coming in on the tail of Louis CK:
"Portia de Rossi accuses Steven Seagal of sexual harassment"

The Arrested Development actress, who is married to US talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, made the allegation in a tweet posted on Wednesday night.
She alleges that during a film audition Mr Seagal told her "how important it was to have chemistry off-screen" before unzipping his trousers.
Mr Seagal's manager told BBC News that the actor had no comment.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41936741

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Coming in on the tail of Louis CK:
"Portia de Rossi accuses Steven Seagal of sexual harassment"

The Arrested Development actress, who is married to US talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, made the allegation in a tweet posted on Wednesday night.
She alleges that during a film audition Mr Seagal told her "how important it was to have chemistry off-screen" before unzipping his trousers.
Mr Seagal's manager told BBC News that the actor had no comment.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41936741

This is one I didn't see coming, but not shocked by it at all.

Louis CK, Roy Moore, and now Steven Seagal.

Interesting times...Seagal doesn't terribly surprise me however.

One could expect that those people, having as much fame and power as they have, shouldn't need to do this kind of things to have sex.

Probably they could have all the women they want, willingly. But I suppose the feeling of forcing yourself on the basis of pure power is too ecstatic.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Louis CK, Roy Moore, and now Steven Seagal.

Interesting times...Seagal doesn't terribly surprise me however.

Here is Steven Seagal with a 16 year old Katherine Heigl:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Louis CK, Roy Moore, and now Steven Seagal.

Interesting times...Seagal doesn't terribly surprise me however.

Yeah, Seagal has always been an donkey-cave, in every regard.

I wonder what Hollywood will look like after this has had some time to play out. Unfortunately, sexual abuse will never go away completely. On the other hand, I can see the big studios and production companies really clamping down tight and doing their best to avoid this kind of liability. It doesn't seem much of a stretch for directors, actors and producers to be vetted like law enforcement or political candidates are (supposed to be), with a thorough background check before any kind of project is started. This kind of sustained movement has the potential to drastically alter the culture and politics of the entertainment industry, but I guess only time will tell in what ways.

The Louis CK thing has been talked about for a long time now. I remember when the accusations against Cosby first came to light there was a radio interview here talking about how the comedy industry is a tough business where most acts make very little money, so the few really big stars that command big audiences make the whole thing commercial, and as a result there are very strong motivations to protect those few really big earners. The conversation then went on how there were still comedians today who were being similarly protected to how Cosby was protected, which prompted the interviewer to ask if that was a reference the rumours about Louis CK. The interviewee was as honest in her reply as you could be without getting herself in legal trouble.

In other news, proving that people will still circle the wagons around people that are important to various establishments, there's a strong push back against the accusations against Roy Moore. The conservative media that has embraced every accusation against everyone in Hollywood has suddenly rediscovered that it is easy to accuse women of lying... because Moore is very important to them. I don't want to make this a political thing, because we're not allowed to do that, but there is an important point that needs to be made again and again - these people will remain protected as long as powerful groups want them protected, and those groups lack integrity.

Hollywood now hearing and respecting accusations against people who are still very powerful, like Kevin Spacey is maybe a good sign that Hollywood will no longer protect it's most powerful people, but it's more likely to be temporary as long as underlying power relationships remain. I think the only way we will see a change in any culture is if we see a change in every culture.

 Galas wrote:
One could expect that those people, having as much fame and power as they have, shouldn't need to do this kind of things to have sex.

Probably they could have all the women they want, willingly. But I suppose the feeling of forcing yourself on the basis of pure power is too ecstatic.

For the longest time I heard that mantra that rape wasn't about sex, it was about power. I always accepted this, but I'm not sure I really understood it. I think I understand it now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
I wonder what Hollywood will look like after this has had some time to play out.

Much like the issues with institutional cover up of paedophilia, we will miss any chance of reform if we hold up a single organisation/industry as a scapegoat for this. Pedophilia wasn't just in the Catholic Church, this isn't just a Hollywood thing.

Speaking of those entrenched power structures, there was a story today about Bill O'Reilly's contract.

His contract originally had a stipulation that he could not be fired for harassment unless the accusations against him were proven in court. As a result, he could just pay off accusers over and over again, and he was essentially immune from being fired for them.

Subsequent to the most recent $32 million dollars settlement, and with Roger Ailes leaving the picture, when O'Reilly's contract was renegotiated, that Fox board demanded that clause be struck, which is how he was originally fired.

Still, you have to wonder what kind of organization would sign such a contract, which clearly lays out a picture of someone as a serial sexual harasser and immunizes them from it.

I guess the same one that brings him back afterward as a guest to start his rehab tour, much as Mel Gibson is now enjoying.

 Ouze wrote:
Subsequent to the most recent $32 million dollars settlement, and with Roger Ailes leaving the picture, when O'Reilly's contract was renegotiated, that Fox board demanded that clause be struck, which is how he was originally fired.

When you make people a lot of money, the people who benefit will do anything to protect you, it seems.

Still, you have to wonder what kind of organization would sign such a contract, which clearly lays out a picture of someone as a serial sexual harasser and immunizes them from it.

I guess the same one that brings him back afterward as a guest to start his rehab tour

Probably the same sort of organisation that was run by a serial offender for years, and that is right now attempting to protect Roy Moore by attacking the women who've spoken out against him.

much as Mel Gibson is now enjoying.

Yeah, what the hell is that about? At least until about a year ago Gibson was largely leading his own productions, and they were pretty grim films. But now there's an ad on tv for some family comedy pap, and we're supposed to start pretending he's just a nice guy again or something?

he could not be fired for harassment unless the accusations against him were proven in court.

I don't think this is a bad contract clause, I wouldn't want to be fired for an accusation that wasn't true and you can only really prove it one way or another in court.

The mistake was not putting something about a financial settlement being tantamount to an admission of guilt in the contract.

 djones520 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Louis CK, Roy Moore, and now Steven Seagal.

Interesting times...Seagal doesn't terribly surprise me however.

Yeah, Seagal has always been an donkey-cave, in every regard.

Agreed.


His behaviour has always been terrible.

but his dancing ....

 Ouze wrote:
Speaking of those entrenched power structures, there was a story today about Bill O'Reilly's contract.

His contract originally had a stipulation that he could not be fired for harassment unless the accusations against him were proven in court. As a result, he could just pay off accusers over and over again, and he was essentially immune from being fired for them.

Subsequent to the most recent $32 million dollars settlement, and with Roger Ailes leaving the picture, when O'Reilly's contract was renegotiated, that Fox board demanded that clause be struck, which is how he was originally fired.

Still, you have to wonder what kind of organization would sign such a contract, which clearly lays out a picture of someone as a serial sexual harasser and immunizes them from it.

I guess the same one that brings him back afterward as a guest to start his rehab tour, much as Mel Gibson is now enjoying.

The same organisation that now defends a child molester. Enter Roy Moore and Sean Hannity to the defense. Fox news, rape, molestation, crimes against women and children are only bad if democrats do it, its acceptable and defendable when R's do it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
The same organisation that now defends a child molester. Enter Roy Moore and Sean Hannity to the defense. Fox news, rape, molestation, crimes against women and children are only bad if democrats do it, its acceptable and defendable when R's do it.

I don't think this is true, to be honest. I suspect partisanship is strong enough that if the exact same thing happened on the left, you'd see a similar circling of the wagons, because I think that's a feature of US culture. I'm not doing a "both sides are bad" appeal to moderation, so much as an observation that in the US, in 2017, political tribalism seems to trump all other values at this point and I have no real reason to think it's a right-wing phenomenon.

While the specific left/right angle is just a sure way to a political poop fling and a lock, it would be better, and certainly more on-topic to discuss how media organizations like Fox etc protect serial harassers so long as they are useful.

TBH I don't think that's even unique to the USA, pretty certain it's the same anywhere in the world.

 reds8n wrote:
TBH I don't think that's even unique to the USA, pretty certain it's the same anywhere in the world.

That red team/blue team partisanship now trumps apparently all other values? That's sad to hear. I don't think it was a feature of this country until our relatively recent history - look at how many members of his own party helped to oust Nixon. There was a fair bit of cooperation between the two parties as recently as the latter half of the Clinton administration.

Here is an exhausting list of prominent people accused of harassment.

 Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
The same organisation that now defends a child molester. Enter Roy Moore and Sean Hannity to the defense. Fox news, rape, molestation, crimes against women and children are only bad if democrats do it, its acceptable and defendable when R's do it.

I don't think this is true, to be honest. I suspect partisanship is strong enough that if the exact same thing happened on the left, you'd see a similar circling of the wagons, because I think that's a feature of US culture. I'm not doing a "both sides are bad" appeal to moderation, so much as an observation that in the US, in 2017, political tribalism seems to trump all other values at this point and I have no real reason to think it's a right-wing phenomenon.

While the specific left/right angle is just a sure way to a political poop fling and a lock, it would be better, and certainly more on-topic to discuss how media organizations like Fox etc protect serial harassers so long as they are useful.

Except we didn't see a circling of the wagons for Weinstein, he got kicked to the curb, no one is defending the guy Nor any of the other accused that have come to light. It is a right wing thing to defend their reps no matter how heinous the crime, It is only the right that does it.

I'm sure Murdoch will defend moore long enough so moore can vote to lower his taxes.

the thread has been political since the first post, I'm surprised it's still around.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm sure Murdoch will defend moore long enough so moore can vote to lower his taxes.

Last night Hannity defended the relationship between a man in his 30s and a 14 year old child as "consensual", while interviewing a contributor who claimed actual victims of sexual assault and harassment are "few and far between"; so there really is no point in having this discussion, honestly. Roy Moore is 100% still going to be elected and you're still going to have plenty of defense of him because that's who we are now, so there really is no productive debate to be had there.

Obviously it started from a political place, as you note, and in fact I did very early on as well: certainly the much more widely known Bill O'Reilly had no thread started for him. However, both this thread and the topic have kind of evolved. It's not even really about Weinstein anymore.

 reds8n wrote:
TBH I don't think that's even unique to the USA, pretty certain it's the same anywhere in the world.

#MeToo has had a major impact in Sweden.
Among other things, several beloved TV-personas/hosts and journalists has been accused of (and quite a few have admitted to committing) many years of sexual abuse against female co-workers.
It seems our national theater (Dramaten) also has a long history of making cover ups for the male actors/performers when they get a little too touchy with their female co-workers.
Can't wait to see who or what will be exposed next week. Quite a few heads have already rolled, and more will follow.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
TBH I don't think that's even unique to the USA, pretty certain it's the same anywhere in the world.

#MeToo has had a major impact in Sweden.
Among other things, several beloved TV-personas/hosts and journalists has been accused of (and quite a few have admitted to committing) many years of sexual abuse against female co-workers.
It seems our national theater (Dramaten) also has a long history of making cover ups for the male actors/performers when they get a little too touchy with their female co-workers.
Can't wait to see who or what will be exposed next week. Quite a few heads have already rolled, and more will follow.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that. I was unaware of the larger impact beyond Hollywood. Are we seeing this in other EU natiosn as well thansk to Social Media? What about further abroad?

 Easy E wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
TBH I don't think that's even unique to the USA, pretty certain it's the same anywhere in the world.

#MeToo has had a major impact in Sweden.
Among other things, several beloved TV-personas/hosts and journalists has been accused of (and quite a few have admitted to committing) many years of sexual abuse against female co-workers.
It seems our national theater (Dramaten) also has a long history of making cover ups for the male actors/performers when they get a little too touchy with their female co-workers.
Can't wait to see who or what will be exposed next week. Quite a few heads have already rolled, and more will follow.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that. I was unaware of the larger impact beyond Hollywood. Are we seeing this in other EU natiosn as well thansk to Social Media? What about further abroad?

The hashtag is quite popular in Germany, too, and I think one or two actresses have opened up about incidents in the German movie scene. Mostly I have seen discussions and opinions in online newspapers. So there's an impact here, too, at least to a certain degree.

 Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm sure Murdoch will defend moore long enough so moore can vote to lower his taxes.

Last night Hannity defended the relationship between a man in his 30s and a 14 year old child as "consensual", while interviewing a contributor who claimed actual victims of sexual assault and harassment are "few and far between"; so there really is no point in having this discussion, honestly. Roy Moore is 100% still going to be elected and you're still going to have plenty of defense of him because that's who we are now, so there really is no productive debate to be had there.

Obviously it started from a political place, as you note, and in fact I did very early on as well: certainly the much more widely known Bill O'Reilly had no thread started for him. However, both this thread and the topic have kind of evolved. It's not even really about Weinstein anymore.

We? No. That might be how you are, and way to many others, but it will never be my position.

I've seen how the thread has evolved, which is why I added in moore, so we can see the contrast on how those accused are treated. The two sides are in no way comparable on the subject.

the left ostracizes and rejects them, the right defends and welcomes them.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm sure Murdoch will defend moore long enough so moore can vote to lower his taxes.

Last night Hannity defended the relationship between a man in his 30s and a 14 year old child as "consensual", while interviewing a contributor who claimed actual victims of sexual assault and harassment are "few and far between"; so there really is no point in having this discussion, honestly. Roy Moore is 100% still going to be elected and you're still going to have plenty of defense of him because that's who we are now, so there really is no productive debate to be had there.

Obviously it started from a political place, as you note, and in fact I did very early on as well: certainly the much more widely known Bill O'Reilly had no thread started for him. However, both this thread and the topic have kind of evolved. It's not even really about Weinstein anymore.

We? No. That might be how you are, and way to many others, but it will never be my position.

I've seen how the thread has evolved, which is why I added in moore, so we can see the contrast on how those accused are treated. The two sides are in no way comparable on the subject.

the left ostracizes and rejects them, the right defends and welcomes them.

Yeah, no.

Both political sides will defend/turn a blind eye to someone when its convenient. Harvy Wienstein for instance. The various people he donated to on the Left were happy to take his money even though his behavior was basically common knowledge. Everybody knew about it. It was only once it blew up like this that they decided to drop him, and you should note they still kept his money.

As you noted, they dropped him. Unlike a certain president who got elected with more accusations and lawsuits and saying he does it. also there's this current moore guy.

You don't see people claiming the bible says what wienstein did was ok, unlike moore.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Both political sides will defend/turn a blind eye to someone when its convenient. Harvy Wienstein for instance. The various people he donated to on the Left were happy to take his money even though his behavior was basically common knowledge. Everybody knew about it. It was only once it blew up like this that they decided to drop him, and you should note they still kept his money.

I follow entertainment news pretty closely and I don't think his behavior was common knowledge outside of certain small circles. I would hazard that the percentage of the general public who even knew his name, period, is incredibly tiny.

Also, the idea that it was common knowledge and was overlooked because of his invaluable campaign donations is pretty laughable. This is a guy who generated 2.5 million in donations over the last 17 years - I question if $140k in a year even gets you a call back from politicians at the national level, let alone looking the other way at what are likely serial criminal offenses. His power was rooted in his connections to directors, producers, agents, and other parts of the movie making infrastructure.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Both political sides will defend/turn a blind eye to someone when its convenient. Harvy Wienstein for instance. The various people he donated to on the Left were happy to take his money even though his behavior was basically common knowledge. Everybody knew about it. It was only once it blew up like this that they decided to drop him, and you should note they still kept his money.

I follow entertainment news pretty closely and I don't think his behavior was common knowledge outside of certain small circles. I would hazard that the percentage of the general public who even knew his name, period, is incredibly tiny.

Also, the idea that it was common knowledge and was overlooked because of his invaluable campaign donations is pretty laughable. This is a guy who generated 2.5 million in donations over the last 17 years - I question if $140k in a year even gets you a call back from politicians at the national level, let alone looking the other way at what are likely serial criminal offenses. His power was rooted in his connections to directors, producers, agents, and other parts of the movie making infrastructure.

Look, mate, we don't your 'facts' getting in the way of a good ol' Both Sides narrative.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Speaking of those entrenched power structures, there was a story today about Bill O'Reilly's contract.

His contract originally had a stipulation that he could not be fired for harassment unless the accusations against him were proven in court. As a result, he could just pay off accusers over and over again, and he was essentially immune from being fired for them.

Subsequent to the most recent $32 million dollars settlement, and with Roger Ailes leaving the picture, when O'Reilly's contract was renegotiated, that Fox board demanded that clause be struck, which is how he was originally fired.

Still, you have to wonder what kind of organization would sign such a contract, which clearly lays out a picture of someone as a serial sexual harasser and immunizes them from it.

I guess the same one that brings him back afterward as a guest to start his rehab tour, much as Mel Gibson is now enjoying.

The same organisation that now defends a child molester. Enter Roy Moore and Sean Hannity to the defense. Fox news, rape, molestation, crimes against women and children are only bad if democrats do it, its acceptable and defendable when R's do it.

No US politics please, even about weirdoes wearing Western cowboy hats.

Looks like Louis CK is being by far the most adult person on the receiving end of accusations thus far, openly confirming the accusations and admitting fault.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/entertainment/louis-ck-apology/index.html



Probably just an attempt to salvage a career out of this current tide of allegations, but a good one. It's probably the most contrite and sincere sounding apology of any in this whole sordid affair, accepting personal responsibility with minimal deflection and no attempts to dispute accusers stories or shame them. It will be interesting to see how it turns out for him, and if it will change anything for anyone else.