LakersGround.net :: View topic - Sexual Harassment Accusations (Weinstein sentenced to 23 years; Weinstein put in isolation after contracting virus) BILL COSBY RELEASED pg44

Sexual Harassment Accusations (Weinstein sentenced to 23 years; Weinstein put in isolation after contracting virus) BILL COSBY RELEASED pg44
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 42, 43, 44 Next

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

ringfinger
Retired Number

Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:03 am Post subject:

jodeke wrote:

LakerLanny wrote:

There have been "blind" reports coming out for years about a bigtime Hollywood studio head doing these types of things and I had a feeling it could him.

Of course that could be because he is well known and I don't know the names of many of the other major players who actually make the deals.

Certainly his behavior is way over the line by any standard, but to compare it to drugging and sexually assaulting women like Cosby? That is a reach to me.

I am little amused by the "surprise" that an executive in Hollywood could be using his power to get sexual favors from potential actress hires. That has never happened before I am sure.

I agree. AH changed my mind on that issue. Crosby's indescrestion is more akin the the (R) word than assault.

Jodeke, I think you're confused on your terminology. The (r) word is assault. What Weinstein did is not assault. It is harassment.

Being a sleazeball isn't a crime. Assaulting someone is.

jodeke
Retired Number

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67876
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:20 am Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

jodeke wrote:

LakerLanny wrote:

I agree. AH changed my mind on that issue. Crosby's indescrestion is more akin the the (R) word than assault.

Jodeke, I think you're confused on your terminology. The (r) word is assault. What Weinstein did is not assault. It is harassment.

Being a sleazeball isn't a crime. Assaulting someone is.

I don't think so. Assault can be by coercion, (R) can be by force. What Cosby did could be considered force. What Spielberg did could be considered coercion. Therein lies your "shades of gray". The terminology can be commingled.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Last edited by jodeke on Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:30 am; edited 1 time in total

ringfinger
Retired Number

Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:29 am Post subject:

jodeke wrote:

ringfinger wrote:

jodeke wrote:

LakerLanny wrote:

I agree. AH changed my mind on that issue. Crosby's indescrestion is more akin the the (R) word than assault.

Jodeke, I think you're confused on your terminology. The (r) word is assault. What Weinstein did is not assault. It is harassment.

Being a sleazeball isn't a crime. Assaulting someone is.

I don't this so. Assault can be by coercion, (R) can be by force. Therein lies your "shades of gray". The terminology can be commingled.

No actually they can't. Although I guess it is your first amendment right to comingle them if you like.

But just so you are clear, sexual harassment is not a crime. Sexual assault is.

There is a legal distinction whether you want to recongize it or not.

ChefLinda
Moderator

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24177
Location: Boston

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:37 am Post subject:

Quote:

Is Sexual Harassment a Crime?
By George Khoury, Esq. on March 2, 2017 12:51 PM
When an individual is sexually harassed in the workplace, often victims are left feeling violated as if they were victims of a crime. Although an individual can sue after being sexually harassed, sexual harassment is not a crime. But, if it involves unwanted touching, physical intimidation, or even some extreme forms of coercion, it can quickly turn into sexual assault, which is a serious crime.

Types of Sexual Harassment

Sexual Harassment comes in two distinct forms:

Quid Pro Quo: A person in authority demands or requires sexual acts in exchange for preferential treatment, or to avoid punitive actions.
Hostile Work Environment: A person in authority/employer fails to remedy a work environment where sexually inappropriate behavior, comments, or other actions are occurring, making the workplace intimidating or offensive.
Sexual harassment in either form is not a crime. Instead, there are civil liabilities involved.

Is Harassment Different From Sexual Assault?

Yes, harassment is different from sexual assault, which can be a serious crime. Sexual assault involves unwanted sexual contact as a result of force, coercion, or incapacitation.

If a victim of sexual harassment has suffered unwanted sexual touching, they should contact the police. Particularly if the unwanted touching was forceful, contacting the police is the first step in having a person charged with sexual assault.

Victim's Rights Under the Law

Both types of sexual harassment listed above are violations of an individual's civil rights, since they are both considered forms of illegal discrimination under Title VII, under federal law, and under each state's own laws.

However, sexual harassment claims are frequently difficult to prove in court as the evidence generally only includes statements from the victim and the aggressor. Also, hostile work environment claims require the victim to provide their employer with an opportunity to cure the problem, unless the employer had actual notice, or should have had notice, that the aggressor was prone to that sort of conduct.

Fortunately, once a victim reports sexual harassment, even internally, they will be protected by Title VII's anti-retaliation provisions, and likely also the anti-retaliation provisions under state law. However, a victim will still need to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or the state equivalent agency (such as the DFEH in California), regarding the sexual harassment, and/or the retaliation, as a pre-requisite to filing a claim in court. EEOC complaints, generally, must be filed within 6 months from the last discriminatory incident or adverse action.

Although sexual harassment lawsuits may be difficult to prosecute, victims can take some solace in the fact that their allegations will be made part of the public record. This means that the allegations will follow their aggressors, whether found guilty or not, for life. This is well illustrated by the recent backlash over Casey Affleck's Oscar win.

Link

jodeke
Retired Number

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67876
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:37 am Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

jodeke wrote:

ringfinger wrote:

jodeke wrote:

LakerLanny wrote:

I agree. AH changed my mind on that issue. Crosby's indescrestion is more akin the the (R) word than assault.

Jodeke, I think you're confused on your terminology. The (r) word is assault. What Weinstein did is not assault. It is harassment.

Being a sleazeball isn't a crime. Assaulting someone is.

I don't this so. Assault can be by coercion, (R) can be by force. Therein lies your "shades of gray". The terminology can be commingled.

To be clear, I'm comparing Cosby to Weinstine. Crime, assault, harassment is not my issue, the indiscretion is. In my mind Cosby committed (R) Weinstein is guilty of harassment. Note the embolden! and the OP
Will he be treated as Cosby's being treated?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:46 am Post subject:

jodeke wrote:

Spielberg? I assume you mean Weinstein.

Anyway, the word you are looking for is consent. Nonconsensual sex is the R word. If you drug someone without their knowledge, they can’t consent. If the person is unconscious, they can’t consent. If they are too young, they cannot legally consent (hence, we call it statutory R).

As the article quoted by BF explains, ordinary sexual harassment is not usually criminal unless it involves an element of battery (physical contact). I have seen several cases in which criminal charges were brought without contact, but they arose out of other conduct (threats and the like).

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:51 am Post subject:

jodeke wrote:

The better question is whether he will be treated proportionately to what he did. See my prior post in response to Adkindo for a discussion of how the response will be different.

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:53 am Post subject:

LakerLanny wrote:

I am little amused by the "surprise" that an executive in Hollywood could be using his power to get sexual favors from potential actress hires. That has never happened before I am sure.

Yeah, no one has ever heard of a “casting couch” before.

jodeke
Retired Number

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67876
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:54 am Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

jodeke wrote:

Yeah, brain fart, Aguayo, Folk. My issue is with the indiscretion not the criminal intent. Coercion or criminal the invasion of a women without her willing consent is unacceptable.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

ringfinger
Retired Number

Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:01 pm Post subject:

jodeke wrote:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

jodeke wrote:

Yeah, brain fart, Aguayo, Folk. My issue is with the indiscretion not the criminal intent. Coercion or criminal the invasion of a women without her willing consent is unacceptable.

Well, the answer to your question is no, they won't be treated the same because their indiscretions, at least what we know today, are different. One ia a crime and the other boils down to inappropriate behavior.

A fairer comparison to Weinstein would probably be O'Reilly.

jodeke
Retired Number

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67876
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:31 pm Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

jodeke wrote:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

jodeke wrote:

Yeah, brain fart, Aguayo, Folk. My issue is with the indiscretion not the criminal intent. Coercion or criminal the invasion of a women without her willing consent is unacceptable.

That's true. AH satisfied my comparison to Cosby and Weinstine.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52694
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:53 pm Post subject:

FIRED _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow And everything you built that’s all for show goes up in flames In 24 frames Jason Isbell Man, do those lyrics resonate right now

jodeke
Retired Number

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67876
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:03 pm Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

FIRED

Quote:

Harvey Weinstein has been fired from his own company.

_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Basketball Fan
Franchise Player

Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24781

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:55 pm Post subject:

Eh sounds like they are doing it for insurance purposes how can you get fired from your own company? He's probably going to WFH

ChefLinda
Moderator

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24177
Location: Boston

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:10 pm Post subject:

Good, glad he's out. Hopefully we've reached some kind of critical mass on these things and predators like this get caught sooner rather than it going on for decades. Of course when you have one in the White House...

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52694
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:13 pm Post subject:

Basketball Fan wrote:

Eh sounds like they are doing it for insurance purposes how can you get fired from your own company?

He's probably going to WFH

You get fired from your own company when you become a liability to the rest of the company. As for "working from home", I'm sure he'll probably chime in, but as far as any meaningful participation , it'd be more harmful to allow that than it would be to simply not fire him.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames

Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now

jodeke
Retired Number

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67876
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:15 pm Post subject:

Basketball Fan wrote:

Eh sounds like they are doing it for insurance purposes how can you get fired from your own company?

He's probably going to WFH

I think the BoD can fire him as an employee but he'd still retain his stock and ownership.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Last edited by jodeke on Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

Basketball Fan
Franchise Player

Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24781

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:58 pm Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Basketball Fan wrote:

Eh sounds like they are doing it for insurance purposes how can you get fired from your own company?

He's probably going to WFH

Maybe I just find this to be more for appearances than reality especially when I doubt any of them were clueless about this sort of thing to begin with.

They knew and didn't care as long as he was making them $$$ he's not as profitable as he once was so they can make this public gesture as if they care.

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52694
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:12 pm Post subject:

Basketball Fan wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Basketball Fan wrote:

Eh sounds like they are doing it for insurance purposes how can you get fired from your own company?

He's probably going to WFH

Harvey has had a reputation for being a prick and a misogynist for many years. It's miserable that it took so long for the powers that be to do something.

They are going to get blasted either way. If they do nothing, they obviously are going to get grief, as they should. They took "action" and get blasted for it being too little too late, as they should. I'll take action over no action even it is cosmetic. It's not like they have many other options.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames

Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:54 am Post subject:

Basketball Fan wrote:

Eh sounds like they are doing it for insurance purposes how can you get fired from your own company?

He's probably going to WFH

He doesn’t actually own the company, though of course he is a major shareholder. I read that he and his brother own about 42%. I will hazard a guess that he sells out, the company gets renamed, and he tries to start fresh with a new vehicle.

Realistically, this is close to the maximum that can be done to someone like Weinstein. At least in the short run, he’ll be a pariah in Hollywood.

adkindo
Retired Number

Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:46 am Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

adkindo wrote:

I was reading and respecting your response...until the last line. Those repulsive type of ignorant comments is why I do not hang out in the political forum. For you to complain about "partisan hackery" is a joke in itself.

While I share your disdain for The Political Thread, the board rules do deserve respect. All political discussions are supposed to be in that thread. I’ve been guilty of straying across the line, too, and the mods have been tolerant up to a point. However, I think we should button this up.

As someone who is also guilty and thus isn't going to cast a lot of stones, yes, it is helpful if we keep politics in the politics thread, although itnis inevitable with some issues that end up with their own thread. But I do think we can discuss this one without having to resort to straight up partisanship.

I had no issue with being told to take it to the political thread....that part was correct, and I have told people the same thing....but it was the personal shot at me that did not set well with me. Re reading it, it was not that harsh of a comment...maybe it caught me in a poor mood or something.

adkindo
Retired Number

Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:55 am Post subject:

Interesting that the NY Times has presented themselves as the brave journalism outlet that had the courage to take on one of Hollywood's most powerful.....but Sharon Waxman is claiming she had the story in 2004 and the same NY Times killed the story after Matt Damon and Russell Crowe called in favors to her superiors....as well as meet with Weinstein himself. Link

splashmtn
Star Player

Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:40 am Post subject:

jodeke wrote:

ringfinger wrote:

jodeke wrote:

LakerLanny wrote:

I agree. AH changed my mind on that issue. Crosby's indescrestion is more akin the the (R) word than assault.

Jodeke, I think you're confused on your terminology. The (r) word is assault. What Weinstein did is not assault. It is harassment.

Being a sleazeball isn't a crime. Assaulting someone is.

right. I also still believe that most of not all of the cosby accusers are not telling the entire truth. meaning they are not admitting that they knew the drugs were apart of the deal. I think the knew and they did it anyway for the same reasons some of these ladies only just recently said something. because their careers are on the line or if they dont have careers yet, you think cosby or this guy could give them that jumpstart. basically its a casting couch setup. now obviously if its true that cosby unknowingly drugged these women and they had no idea sex was apart of the deal. it would make his situation must worse. But like i said. I have a hard time believing that when you take a look at their stories. people coming back a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time. Why would you do that unless you felt like this was apart of the deal. Now we know Cosby didnt hold his end of the bargain up for any of these ladies. He didnt make any of them starts/famous that were not already famous. This other guy actually looked like he held up his side of the deal with some of these people. The other thing is cosby has seemed to only have paid the one lady off. While this other guy has paid off several. So that tells me multiple women came out about it when it happened and hey chose to pay it off to make it go away. where as the cosby situation is different. only one person said something about it. and even then it was a lot latter then when it actually supposedly occurred.

quotes from Ms. Constand talking about things that happened prior to the supposed drugging incident.

Quote:

He twice attempted to touch her, she said, before January 2004. Once he put his hand in a "suggestive" way on her thigh, and she moved away. At another dinner, he moved close to her and attempted to pull down the zipper to her pants, she testified. She leaned forward to stop him and told him, "I'm not here for that."
Still, they continued their friendship. "I trusted him. I wasn't scared of him in any way," she said.

What the hell are you doing going back after the first time you had to move this creepy old man's hand off of your leg? whatever i thought of mr jello pudding pop before then would've been out the window after that first incident. but No..you let that slide. Fine. you're a too nice for your own good type of person. I get it. everyone likes to give people an extra strike. .So then he tries to pull down your zipper. so lets stop here. The first thigh thing you could've lied to yourself and said "maybe i was overreacting, perhaps thats not what he was doing at all."

Then you know for fact he's literally trying to get into your pants. and yet you still want to hang around the sleezy old man named bill cosby. WHY? "because i trusted him" No you didnt. at least not after these 2 incidents. Unless we're going to admit you have mental issues where your adult brain was working like a 12 year old child. then maybe I would agree. But if thats not the case. Then you didnt trust this dirty old man. You went back for something that you THOUGHT he could give you. Access, Money, i dont know what it was, but it was something other than trust. And this is the lady that I myself thought if any of them were being truthful it was here. Thats before I heard her own testimony.

So again. it surely sounds like Bill's situation is similar to this other guys situation. a bunch of dirty dudes running around using their power to persuade people into the bedroom. Bill just thru some pills in the mix since most of the allegations are from the pill popping drug taking/sex for everyone era.

Like i said. who do you think bill learned this from? Do you guys remember your current president having that conversation about how you treat women when you're rich. how you can just grab em.... That same so called "locker room" talk happens with the Hollywood elites too. Lets be real, in light of Hef passing. The entire Pboy mansion was built on the casting coach theory. Hef was just straight up about it for everyone to know. if you want to be famous and be taken care of come on to the Pboy mansion and show us what you got. In reality thats still demeaning towards women, even if women will sign up for it. doesnt matter, half or more of those ladies are not doing it because they like it as much as it is they wanted to be famous, or have money/access they would not have had in other way based on what society was allowing women to have and or allowing women to do without push back.

splashmtn
Star Player

Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:44 am Post subject:

adkindo wrote:

Interesting that the NY Times has presented themselves as the brave journalism outlet that had the courage to take on one of Hollywood's most powerful.....but Sharon Waxman is claiming she had the story in 2004 and the same NY Times killed the story after Matt Damon and Russell Crowe called in favors to her superiors....as well as meet with Weinstein himself.

Link

makes sense. Hollywood protects hollywood. people worth a lot of money and that have talent always gets a pass. again, we're just now talking about this as if we didnt all here these stories living in L.A. our entire lives. And at what point are we going to get at some of these hollywood types messing with the hollywood kids?

There's a reason even us L.A. people call it Hollywierd at times.

and if the mart about the two actors calling in those favors to. That tells you how tightly nit these people are in hollywood. And how selfish everyone is.
They dont give a rats .... about these women/nor children. As long as they can get their careers popping and keep those roles/money rolling in. by any means necessary.

lakersken80
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38869

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:20 am Post subject:

splashmtn wrote:

adkindo wrote:

The powerful in Hollywood live in their own reality. I still remember Meryl Streep giving a standing ovation to Roman Polanski and everyone knows his sordid history.

Display posts from previous:

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 42, 43, 44 Next

Page 3 of 44

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.

We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.