Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Predator and Prey: Assault, harassment, and other aggressions in the entertainment industry

OtterMommy

By OtterMommy
in Everything Else TV

OtterMommy
Message added by OtterMommy

The guidelines for this thread are in the first post.  Please familiarize yourself with them and check frequently as any changes or additions will be posted there (as well as in an in-thread post).

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Lady Whistleup
Lady Whistleup

I just find it infuriating that we still want to look for "perfect victims." Victims are never perfect -- they're human. Amber Heard could be a truly shitty human being, and Johnny Depp could have abu

Proclone
Proclone

Exactly.  Heard isn't a perfect victim.  She's probably a deeply unpleasant toxic person, that doesn't hide particularly well...and none of that precludes her from being abused.  If you subscribe

Hiyo
Hiyo

The word "cancel" is like the word "woke", something that has been co-opted in a certain way by certain people for silly culture wars as a distraction from tackling real issues.

Posted Images

bluegirl147

bluegirl147

I've only been slightly paying attention to this case.  Have any of Masterson's costars spoke up in support of him?

25 minutes ago, Jaded said:

**
 

**

Love that Leah Remini is still speaking out against Scientology. 

  • Like 24
Link to comment
Jaded

Jaded

11 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I've only been slightly paying attention to this case.  Have any of Masterson's costars spoke up in support of him?

Love that Leah Remini is still speaking out against Scientology. 

I haven't read about any of his co-stars supporting him unless I missed it being mentioned somewhere.
 

 

  • Useful 4
Link to comment
Kel Varnsen

Kel Varnsen

13 minutes ago, Jaded said:

I haven't read about any of his co-stars supporting him unless I missed it being mentioned somewhere.
 

 

There was an article I read awhile back with some quotes from Ashton Kutcher. He basically said that Masterson is his friend and he hope he didn't actually commit those crimes. But if he did he hopes that justice is served or something like that. Which I thought was a pretty reasonable response for something he probably gets asked about a lot.

  • Like 5
  • Useful 5
Link to comment
Guest

Guest

On 4/25/2023 at 6:23 AM, bluegirl147 said:

Have any of Masterson's costars spoke up in support of him?

No. Ashton Kutcher has come the closest by saying he wants him to be innocent. He did say, “I wholesale feel for anybody who feels like they were violated in any way” which is language I side-eye somewhat. He also said that he can’t know the truth and he is still friendly with Masterson. 

Topher Grace has probably had the best response of the cast. 

Quote

“You know, I hesitate to say that I never saw any of that behavior because I feel like it sounds like I’m defending him, but the truth is I never saw any of that stuff,”

 

Link to comment
Bastet

Bastet

(edited)
6 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

There was an article I read awhile back with some quotes from Ashton Kutcher. He basically said that Masterson is his friend and he hope he didn't actually commit those crimes. But if he did he hopes that justice is served or something like that. Which I thought was a pretty reasonable response for something he probably gets asked about a lot.

I believe it's this Esquire article you're thinking of:

Quote

Kutcher has stayed in touch with most of his ’70s Show costars. And almost all of them—Topher Grace, Laura Prepon, Debra Jo Rupp, and Kurtwood Smith, as well as Kunis and Valderrama—returned for the reboot. But one familiar face to fans of the original series won’t be back: Danny Masterson.

In June 2020, Masterson was charged with three counts of rape from three separate, alleged incidents between 2001 and 2003. His trial began in the second half of last year, and in December the judge declared a mistrial when the jury remained deadlocked after deliberations. He will now face a retrial.

Back in the day on That ’70s Show, Kutcher says Masterson was the leader of the young talent. He’d been in the industry for a while. Knew reviews and ratings like the ones they were getting didn’t happen often. As Kutcher recalls, “He’s like, ‘One fucking rule: Don’t do anything fucking stupid and fuck this up. Because if you fuck it up, you fuck it up for everybody.’” He kept the cast in line. Off drugs and away from bad decisions.

Masterson’s legal battle is hard for Kutcher to watch. Even after Kutcher left the show, Masterson remained a mentor of his. And when the rape accusations were first made public in 2017, Masterson was costarring with Kutcher in The Ranch, a Netflix sitcom that ran from 2016 to 2020. (Netflix soon wrote Masterson’s character off and fired him.) He and Kutcher remain in touch. Kutcher speaks to Masterson’s brother often. He says he thinks about Masterson’s child and how the Internet lives forever. “Someday, his kid is going to read about this,” says Kutcher. At the same time, Kutcher is an advocate for those who’ve been or are being abused. “I wholesale feel for anybody who feels like they were violated in any way.”

What Kutcher wants, he says, is for Masterson “to be found innocent of the charges brought against him.” Which is not, crucially, the same as Kutcher wanting his friend to get off the hook. He wants this man who was an example of how to handle yourself at a crucial time in his own life to actually be that example. To be innocent.

“Ultimately, I can’t know,” says Kutcher of what the answer is or should be in this moment. “I’m not the judge. I’m not the jury. I’m not the DA. I’m not the victim. And I’m not the accused. And so, in that case, I don’t have a space to comment.” He pauses. “I just don’t know.”

 

Edited by Bastet
  • Useful 5
Link to comment
SunnyBeBe

SunnyBeBe

No judgment towards Ashton Kutcher, but I was a little surprised when he was on a late night show recently and did a huge marketing plug for The Boy Scouts.  No judgment against the Boy Scouts, but there has been some controversy with their payout of over 2 billion dollars a couple of years ago to settle abuse claims.  There’s other stuff too.  He’s been involved for many years with the organization  and is a huge advocate.  Perhaps, he’s promoted change and never encountered negative stuff from them.  Idk.  

  • Useful 4
Link to comment
Stats Queen

Stats Queen

19 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

No judgment towards Ashton Kutcher, but I was a little surprised when he was on a late night show recently and did a huge marketing plug for The Boy Scouts.  No judgment against the Boy Scouts, but there has been some controversy with their payout of over 2 billion dollars a couple of years ago to settle abuse claims.  There’s other stuff too.  He’s been involved for many years with the organization  and is a huge advocate.  Perhaps, he’s promoted change and never encountered negative stuff from them.  Idk.  

The scandal with the Boy Scouts was awful and disgusting. That being said, it was once a great organization and hopefully it has gotten back to its great roots.

My brothers were both in Boy Scouts and had amazing, positive experiences.

  • Like 15
Link to comment
SunnyBeBe

SunnyBeBe

(edited)
16 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I believe he is guilty but my question is did the victim ask for this order or did the DA's office ask for it so Majors can't contact the victim?

The way it’s written, it seems the DA asked for it and the Defendant’s attorney consented. 

Edited by SunnyBeBe
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Guest

Guest

36 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

The way it’s written, it seems the DA asked for it and the Defendant’s attorney consented. 

It’s also an extension of the temporary order that was granted when this first happened. 

Once again, I find the defense lawyer’s  statement more interesting than anything else. All the stuff with the protective order is standard and wouldn’t impact my opinion at all. But his defense lawyer is trying so hard to spin this now and get their version out that it really makes me wonder what the DA has. Because if what his lawyer is saying is true and the whole picture, I can’t see any DA choosing to go forward with a case this high profile. The more his defense attorney talks the more it feels like the standard defense MO in these kinds of cases rather than the truth. 

Link to comment
bluegirl147

bluegirl147

3 hours ago, Dani said:

Because if what his lawyer is saying is true and the whole picture, I can’t see any DA choosing to go forward with a case this high profile. The more his defense attorney talks the more it feels like the standard defense MO in these kinds of cases rather than the truth. 

There has to be more evidence we don't know about. I doubt this is just an overzealous DA hoping to make a name for themselves.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Trini

Trini

Deadline picked this up, but the original source (which they linked) is a podcast with the Lawrence brothers: Matthew Lawrence recalls a 'casting couch' incident that happened to him.

Quote

“There’s been many times in my life where I’ve been propositioned to get a huge role,” Lawrence said. “I’ve lost my agency because I went to the hotel room, which I can’t believe they would send me to, of a very prominent Oscar award-winning director who showed up in his robe, asked me to take my clothes off and said he needed to take Polaroids of me.”

Lawrence added, “And then if I did X, Y and Z, I would be the next Marvel character. I didn’t do that, and my agency fired me because I left this director’s room.”

The actor didn’t reveal any names or give dates on when this encounter happened. Lawrence also mentioned the double standard that exists when male actors talk about sexual harassment versus female actors.

 

It's mentioned in the first 5 minutes of the video, then they move on  to related topics.

I think I have a good guess as to the director might be. What's surprising to me, is that Lawrence's agency fired him because of that. Just terrible.

  • Sad 18
Link to comment
Zella

Zella

1 hour ago, Trini said:

What's surprising to me, is that Lawrence's agency fired him because of that.

Unfortunately, I am not surprised. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 11
Link to comment
andromeda331

andromeda331

But is it her choice? Or her choice after decades of treated like crap for daring to accuse Polanski and everyone who happily supported him like it was a badge of honor? Or due to him never been held accountable and never will? 

  • Like 1
  • Applause 1
Link to comment
Kel Varnsen

Kel Varnsen

(edited)
3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

But is it her choice? Or her choice after decades of treated like crap for daring to accuse Polanski and everyone who happily supported him like it was a badge of honor? Or due to him never been held accountable and never will? 

She settled with him out of court back in the 90's. And my understanding is that she has been asking for the courts to drop the case since then. Not making any suggestion that those choices were right or wrong, but her message has been pretty consistent for a long time.

Edited by Kel Varnsen
  • Like 4
  • Useful 3
Link to comment
callie lee 29

callie lee 29

Yeah her support of him is not anything new. She's been pretty consistent in wanting people to leave him alone and for him to be able to come back to the States. If anything her support seems to be hiring stronger. 

Link to comment
merylinkid

merylinkid

"the fading musician"   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Gee Manson, you can't be out there all "I am a complete jerk" then be surprised that you can't sue someone for defamation when they say in essence "he is a complete jerk."

  • Like 10
  • Applause 2
Link to comment
FilmTVGeek80

FilmTVGeek80

10 hours ago, merylinkid said:

"the fading musician"   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Gee Manson, you can't be out there all "I am a complete jerk" then be surprised that you can't sue someone for defamation when they say in essence "he is a complete jerk."

Isn’t that sugar coating this just a tad? She did a hell of a lot more than say he was a complete jerk.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Blergh

Blergh

5 hours ago, Jaded said:

This is from Leah's Substack...
 

Scientology Infiltration Revealed In Court

 

 

I believe her and, yes, I think this needs to be exposed!

However, as per her account, since Miss Remini is part of the court case as a witness for at least two Jane Does seeking justice, I hope that she doesn't get in any legal hot water and/or that the defense attempts to use this as an excuse to have the case thrown out and get a mistrial declared.

No, I'm by no means saying that would be fair or just but I truly hope Miss Remini at least talked about that possibility with a legal expert before she posted this.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Vermicious Knid

Vermicious Knid

Jimmie Allen sued by former manager for rape and sexual abuse; removed from CMA Fest and suspended by his label. 

Quote

In a story first reported Thursday by Variety, Allen is the subject of a lawsuit brought against him and his former management company by a Jane Doe plaintiff, Allen’s onetime day-to-day manager. The suit accuses Allen of assault and sexual abuse over a period of 18 months, including the startling allegations that he “raped her in private while choking her” and “videotaped multiple sexual encounters in order to blackmail her to stay silent.”

  • Mind Blown 1
  • Sad 7
Link to comment
SunnyBeBe

SunnyBeBe

Evan Rachel Wood has a riveting documentary about her experience.  It’s difficult to watch, but worth it.  She’s from my hometown, so perhaps I’m a bit biased.  Since then, I think Manson has sued her.  

  • Like 4
  • Useful 3
Link to comment
erylin

erylin

On 3/25/2023 at 5:25 AM, Makai said:

It wasn’t just one accusation. In most of the cases where there are lasting consequences there a dozens of reports of concerning behavior. There were many people who were aware of concerns. In this case the criminal charges led to others coming forward with evidence of inappropriate behavior, including with minors. There is a pattern of behavior that the high profile accusation exposes which plays a big role in the outcome.

I don’t know if he was guilty of what he was charged with but even without that there is enough to see he is a creep who shouldn’t be any a position of authority. 

Here’s a quote from Hollywood Reporter. Even if this is all he was guilty of that’s enough for me. Which is often the case in these stories. The best case scenario, the one the accused admits to, is enough to make me never want to support them in any capacity. 

I can think of quite a few examples where one accusation had zero effect. And way too many where multiple accusations also had no impact.
https://papersowl.com/examples/sexual-harassment/ is about helpful sexual harassment essays.
You Dont Know Me Anthony Anderson GIF by ABC Network

Err, I understand your perspective, but I have a different take on the matter. I mean it's so essential to examine each case individually 'cause a single accusation may indeed lead to significant consequences...

It's important to consider that the legal system operates on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." While it's reasonable to have personal reservations about someone based on accusations, we must also respect the legal process and refrain from making definitive judgments until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

And shouldn't we rely on verified information and legal outcomes to determine the appropriate consequences for individuals in positions of authority??

  • Applause 3
Link to comment
  • Popular Post
Makai

Makai

  • Popular Post
(edited)
22 hours ago, erylin said:

While it's reasonable to have personal reservations about someone based on accusations, we must also respect the legal process and refrain from making definitive judgments until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

My question is what does is look like to “respect the legal process and refrain from making definitive judgments until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

22 hours ago, erylin said:

And shouldn't we rely on verified information and legal outcomes to determine the appropriate consequences for individuals in positions of authority??

The legal system would have to get a hell of a lot better for it to be the determining factor for me. Even presuming the legal system always got it right that has little to do with me deciding I am not going to watch a tv show or buy a product that would put money in the pocket of someone I feel is problematic. Presumed innocence does not entitle someone the right to continued patronage. There are lots of completely legal things that people can do that could cause me to not support someone. 

22 hours ago, erylin said:

Err, I understand your perspective, but I have a different take on the matter. I mean it's so essential to examine each case individually 'cause a single accusation may indeed lead to significant consequences...

 

I wasn’t saying that’s it’s not important to examine every accusation. I was saying that in most cases I have a tipping point. Woody Allen is probably the easiest example for me to explain my thoughts. I can’t say definitely if he is or isn’t guilty of molestation even though I have examined the details.  But at the end of the day the things that are 100% proven about him and are completely separate from Dylan’s accusations are enough for me to think he is a horrible human being and to avoid anything involving him. 

Edited by Makai
  • Like 13
  • Applause 12
Link to comment
erylin

erylin

22 hours ago, Makai said:

My question is what does is look like to “respect the legal process and refrain from making definitive judgments until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Err, so respecting the legal process and holding off on definitive judgments until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt basically means giving the legal system a chance to do its thing. It's like acknowledging that someone is innocent until proven guilty in court. Instead of jumping to conclusions based on accusations alone, we need to let the legal process unfold fairly and impartially.
Idk but it is more reasonable to wait for all the evidence to come out and for a verdict to be reached before making up our minds. It's about being fair and just by giving everyone a fair shot. That's all. That's all I meant.

  • Applause 1
  • Useful 1
Link to comment
  • Popular Post
DearEvette

DearEvette

  • Popular Post
2 hours ago, erylin said:

Err, so respecting the legal process and holding off on definitive judgments until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt basically means giving the legal system a chance to do its thing.

But what about the times when there is no possibility of a legal outcome?  Most SA cases don't rise to level of allowing for legal action.  It is she said vs. he said with no evidence to back up her saying he did it, but also no evidence to support him saying he didn't.

And In the case  where it can be litigated, well sure.  If the legal process 100% of the time resulted in only the guilty getting punished and always prevailing when someone is innocent, then yes, this would work.

But the legal system isn't infallible.  R. Kelley was indicted in 2002 on charges related to a sex tape with a 13 year old.  The actual trial didn't happen until  2008.  He was acquitted of those charges and one juror went on record said he voted to acquit because he didn't like the look of the girl who testified and what she was wearing.  R. Kelly wasn't fully convicted of his crimes until 2022. 

If it was up to believing the legal system only,  he would have never been convicted at all. It wasn't until a documentary ,prompted by a grassroots effort by mostly women of color and a reporter from Chicago, that it lit a fire under the legal system that led to him finally being convicted.

So yeah, i think a lot of people would like some sort of irrefutable proof that the thing they believe is the real thing.  But that is not possible most of the time with SA.  So people have to decide for themselves what they will believe and who they will support.

  • Like 10
  • Applause 18
Link to comment
Jaded

Jaded

@DearEvette mentioned the basics of everything I was going to in a more succinct way. The person I survived abuse from only spent one night in jail after being indicted then got a deal of giving up visitation rights instead of going to trial. That kept me safe and spared me from more trauma. The legal system took years to finally do anything so by that point it made more sense to have things go as they did too.

  • Like 5
  • Hugs 11
Link to comment
Makai

Makai

(edited)
8 hours ago, erylin said:

Err, so respecting the legal process and holding off on definitive judgments until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt basically means giving the legal system a chance to do its thing.

But my saying this person who has been credibly accused of this thing I find unacceptable so I am going to make it clear I am not going to support them doesn’t mean I’m not respecting the legal system. It two completely separate things. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean freedom from consequences. 

8 hours ago, erylin said:

Idk but it is more reasonable to wait for all the evidence to come out and for a verdict to be reached before making up our minds. It's about being fair and just by giving everyone a fair shot. That's all. That's all I meant.

In my opinion, the standards that are the foundations of the US legal system is not meant to supplant individual citizens reasoning, conclusions and any legal actions they may take. Not to mention that laws can vary widely even within the same state. 

Edited by Makai
  • Like 22
  • Applause 2
Link to comment
AstridM

AstridM

On 5/18/2023 at 5:21 PM, Makai said:

My question is what does is look like to “respect the legal process and refrain from making definitive judgments until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

The legal system would have to get a hell of a lot better for it to be the determining factor for me. Even presuming the legal system always got it right that has little to do with me deciding I am not going to watch a tv show or buy a product that would put money in the pocket of someone I feel is problematic. Presumed innocence does not entitle someone the right to continued patronage. There are lots of completely legal things that people can do that could cause me to not support someone. 

I wasn’t saying that’s it’s not important to examine every accusation. I was saying that in most cases I have a tipping point. Woody Allen is probably the easiest example for me to explain my thoughts. I can’t say definitely if he is or isn’t guilty of molestation even though I have examined the details.  But at the end of the day the things that are 100% proven about him and are completely separate from Dylan’s accusations are enough for me to think he is a horrible human being and to avoid anything involving him. 

“Innocent until proven guilty” is for jurors, not the general public. 

  • Like 17
  • Applause 6
Link to comment
merylinkid

merylinkid

20 hours ago, AstridM said:

Innocent until proven guilty” is for jurors, not the general public. 

THIS.   Every person can decide for themselves where they stand with regards to accusations.   ONLY if you are called to serve on a jury must you swear to be impartial and decide based only the facts and evidence presented.    The rest of us are free to go "Hey, this guy skeeved me out for years, I could not put my finger on why, now it makes sense."   Or as @Makai said one can decide to not support them.   We all get to make choices who we support and don't.   Sometimes its because of accusations sometimes its just because we don't like that person.   

  • Like 17
Link to comment
bluegirl147

bluegirl147

On 5/19/2023 at 5:32 PM, peachmangosteen said:

Johnny Depp is legally an abuser and yet he still got a huge Dior deal so obviously that doesn't even work.

And Roman Polanski won an Oscar.  

On 5/20/2023 at 1:03 PM, AstridM said:

“Innocent until proven guilty” is for jurors, not the general public. 

100%.  If someone is accused of something I find disgusting or just something I don't agree with then I'm free to not waste my time watching/listening/reading anything they are involved in.  My actions of course have no bearing on their lives but it sure makes me feel better.

 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
SunnyBeBe

SunnyBeBe

(edited)

This is what I don’t understand about Jonathon Majors. So, he has multiple charges against him by his former GF for assault. He denies wrongdoing. Claims it never happened. In the immediate wake of the charges, he’s already attached to a new woman.This creates a very risky place for him to be. What if this woman accuses him of assault? That would look very bad. She could be unstable, get angry and call 911 saying that he assaulted her. Does he have complete trust in her? They just started dating. His legal counsel must have certainly told him to AVOID being alone with any woman, until the charges are resolved. He’s putting himself in a risky situation for no reason. That makes me wonder why he would do that, unless it’s a case of arrogance.  
 

https://www.tmz.com/2023/05/21/jonathan-majors-spotted-meagan-good-assault-case/

Edited by SunnyBeBe
  • Useful 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...