Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Celebrating 1,000 NCIS-franchise episodes

The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

Null 302

By Null 302
in Counting On

Guest

As a reminder, the site's Politics Policy remains in effect.  Yes, Jim Bob is apparently running for office again. That does not make it an acceptable topic of conversation in here - unless for some mysterious reason, TLC brings the show back and it is discussed on there. Even then, it would be limited to how it was discussed on the show.

If you have any questions, please PM the mods, @SCARLETT45 and myself.

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Churchhoney

Churchhoney

(edited)

Companies are falling all over themselves to cut ties with Trump over his derogatory comments, but TLC still won't say if a show featuring an admitted child molester (and his lying family) has been cancelled.

Gee, you mean the loud and ardent politically conservative Christian fundamentalists aren't being persecuted more than anyone else? Surely you are mistaken.

Edited by Churchhoney
  • Love 21
Link to comment
  • Replies 13k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

cmr2014
cmr2014

I was thinking about this and the idea that the girls weren't "harmed" and weren't "damaged goods" which led me to realize that ALL of the Duggar children are "damaged goods" and I think that's becomi

Churchhoney
Churchhoney

They put themselves on tv and have proclaimed over and over and over and over again that their way of life is the way to ensure that your children are totally safe from every evil of the world, and in

WhitneyWhit
WhitneyWhit

I don't know where to post this but I fucking met Michelle Duggar. Let me set the scene. So my cousin is getting married and we were at a shop looking at dresses here in Kentucky when the Duggars marc

Posted Images

Twopper

Twopper

 

Well josh was a minor when this happened so I think she'd be suing JB and M.

She will probably sue both Josh and his parents.  

There is a case from the 50's that is one of the first cases covered in a Torts class, which at least decades ago was a first year, first semester class, in which a 5 year old is successfully sued for pulling out the chair when an older woman was about to sit.  I think she broke her hip or leg( it has been ages since I studied it, and I don't do tort law).  It is possible that the homeowner's insurance may pay the damages, depending on what policy he has.

 

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/garratt-dailey.html

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Bella

Bella

A certain amount of saber-rattling can precede a lawsuit. It can result in concessions from the erstwhile defendant and no trial.

 

I think that's what's happening at this moment. What will happen next? We don't know. But the members of this forum will discuss it, rest assured.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
Missy Vixen

Missy Vixen

 

It seems impossible to me that trashing the victim, especially if it's done through "anonymous sources" so nothing can be traced, would manage to bring the Duggars down when actually covering up their son's molesting children didn't do it. But based on how the rest of this story has played out, we seem to be in Bizarro World anyway, so who knows.

I've been wrong before and I know it'll probably happen again before the day's out, ;-) but I think the Duggars do not understand that things are different now than they were in oh, 1990 and even 2006 as far as survivors of molestation. It's incredible to me that TLC hasn't taken that little fact into consideration as well -- if I remember correctly, 1 in 5 adults is a survivor. That's a hell of a lot of people. When this story first broke, people were outraged over the fact Jim Boob and J-Chelle swept it under the rug and were more interested in getting "their story" out (and protecting the molester) than taking care of four of the five who were affected.

 

While I'm sure there will be those who call the woman in question a "golddigger" and worse, maligning the character and reputation of someone who was so wronged isn't a good look. It isn't the CHRISTIAN thing to do. And that may spark more outrage and disgust than the original story, but again, IMHO.

 

I hope she has a great lawyer. I hope they prevail in summary judgment. I hope they make it to discovery. If Jim Boob and J-Chelle think the past six weeks have been bad, they've seen nothing yet.

  • Love 19
Link to comment
MrsMommy

MrsMommy

If the 5th victim (I honesty don't know how else to refer to her) is only suing Josh, then Jim Bob won't have to pay. Or is she suing the family?

I would assume she can't sue the family, I've seen a case like this go to court in my home town and bc she started the suit when the guy was an adult she could only sue him. Things may be different in AK though

Link to comment
GEML

GEML

If Trump had said these things as a teenager, the story really would be different. And he's had a comeback MANY times. This is just the Duggars first bite at the public shaming Apple.

Link to comment
kokapetl

kokapetl

If Trump had said these things as a teenager, the story really would be different. And he's had a comeback MANY times. This is just the Duggars first bite at the public shaming Apple.

Imagine the TTH in pink marble and brass.
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Lemur

Lemur

Thank you for asking. I thought it meant something about Michelle's love of anal sex.

 

I highly doubt she and JB play that way.  It doesn't produce quivers for the Lord's Army.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Julia

Julia

Watching how quickly NBC dropped Trump, and moved to distance themselves from his speech

 

Apples and oranges, I think. Leaving aside that Trump offended the fastest growing segment of the US population, which NBCU is actively courting, and the fact that his show isn't nearly as popular as it has been (think Paula Deen), Trump is an announced future Republican presidential candidate and they would have had to drop his show anyway, like Fox did Huckabee's. 

 

The Duggars, OTOH, are not just a significant part of the revenue stream for their network, they're one of the few places advertisers can go to reach their fans.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Pixie Chicken

Pixie Chicken

Apples and oranges, I think. Leaving aside that Trump offended the fastest growing segment of the US population, which NBCU is actively courting, and the fact that his show isn't nearly as popular as it has been (think Paula Deen), Trump is an announced future Republican presidential candidate and they would have had to drop his show anyway, like Fox did Huckabee's.

The Duggars, OTOH, are not just a significant part of the revenue stream for their network, they're one of the few places advertisers can go to reach their fans.

Oh, I get why Trump was no big loss. He's a buffoon and deserved the backlash he got. It was the speed that surprised me, whereas TLC hasn't made any announcement whatsoever as to their plans, even as the news gets worse and corporate sponsors have abandoned the network and/or show.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the advertising. The Duggars were a money maker because of the ad revenue, but so many have left, is that really a factor anymore? And for all the ridiculous fan comments on social media, there's not a significant number of people who limit their TV viewing to the "wholesome" Duggars and nothing else, and would be unreachable without the Duggars on TV. Heck, the Duggars themselves claim not to watch TV and know plenty about brand names.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
Anne Elk

Anne Elk

(edited)

The advertisers have not actually left. They announced that they would no longer advertise on the 19KAC show, but that show isn't on right now, so it's moot. The advertisers did not stop advertising on TLC itself, so TLC has not experienced any losses from this yet. I'm sure TLC is hoping that retooling the show as "The Duggar Daughters (with Absolutely No Creepy Molesting Older Brother)" will be enough to keep the advertisers and viewers happy. There is obviously still an audience who wants the show on the air. I think the advertisers like being able to appeal to the Christian community, who probably don't watch much TV other than these type of "wholesome" shows. 

Edited by Anne Elk
  • Love 2
Link to comment
kokapetl

kokapetl

That All American Muslim on TLC was susceptible to yokel 'family organisation' boycotts sort of perversely implies the Duggars have a base that they and TLC can rely on. Last I heard, scumbaggy Lowes was 'no comment' on dropping advertising for '19 Kids'.

  • Love 8
Link to comment
Julia

Julia

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the advertising. The Duggars were a money maker because of the ad revenue, but so many have left, is that really a factor anymore? And for all the ridiculous fan comments on social media, there's not a significant number of people who limit their TV viewing to the "wholesome" Duggars and nothing else, and would be unreachable without the Duggars on TV. Heck, the Duggars themselves claim not to watch TV and know plenty about brand names.

 

 

I'm sure TLC is hoping that retooling the show as "The Duggar Daughters (with Absolutely No Creepy Molesting Older Brother)" will be enough to keep the advertisers and viewers happy. There is obviously still an audience who wants the show on the air. I think the advertisers like being able to appeal to the Christian community, who probably don't watch much TV other than these type of "wholesome" shows. 

 

This. The Duggar show seems to be very popular with people from their faith community who don't consume a lot of secular mass media. That makes them very valuable viewers to advertisers who want to sell them things like soap and processed foods.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
GEML

GEML

I dispute the notion that Christians consume less secular media. A lot of their biggest fans probably want to be more religious than they are, in all honesty. But it's a difficult audience to pin down, and TLC is, overall, a good market for odd, niche audiences. 19K was their largest show. It's not rocket science.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Quof

Quof

I would assume she can't sue the family, I've seen a case like this go to court in my home town and bc she started the suit when the guy was an adult she could only sue him.

She can sue Josh as the person who actually committed the harm.  She can sue Jim Bob and Michelle just because they are his parents and he was a minor at the time, but courts are reluctant to hold parents responsible for the actions of their teenage offspring.   She can, however, sue Jim Bob and Michelle on the basis that they were her employers and exposed her to the known risk of their predator son.  That's different than being responsible for Josh's actions just because they spawned him. 

  • Love 15
Link to comment
Vermicious Knid

Vermicious Knid

Celebrity Apprentice wasn't going to be aired while he was an active candidate, but it didn't actually mean anything because like 19 Kids, it isn't in production.The Trump backlash has gone well beyond that though, with NBC and Spanish-language channels refusing to air the Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants, Macy's discontinuing his clothing line, and New York City is going to review the contracts that Trump's companies have with it. The pageants have just been picked up by Reelz and the owner is reported to favor conservative Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if they offer to air the show. Assuming TLC finally gets off their asses and cancels it.

 

NASCAR(!) is asking the fans to leave their Confederate flags at home. Would someone be willing to send the picture of Josh with the flag to the media outlets? Maybe that will get a response.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
MrsMommy

MrsMommy

She can sue Josh as the person who actually committed the harm. She can sue Jim Bob and Michelle just because they are his parents and he was a minor at the time, but courts are reluctant to hold parents responsible for the actions of their teenage offspring. She can, however, sue Jim Bob and Michelle on the basis that they were her employers and exposed her to the known risk of their predator son. That's different than being responsible for Josh's actions just because they spawned him.

This wouldn't fly in the state I am from, I'm not a lawyer but I did call my cousin who is a lawyer and she laughed and said there is no case against the parents
Link to comment
Happyfatchick

Happyfatchick

I don't know...about this. IANAL (just learned that today!) but if the time line shows the parents were aware of his past molestations, and their own daughters had a locked door, and they left this girl "exposed" (for lack of a better term), didn't warn her, didn't protect her somehow, then I would think they almost certainly could be held accountable on some level. Looking at it purely from a "parent" standpoint, I'd be quaking in my shoes, knowing that while she was under my care (ultimately), she was harmed by the actions of one of my children. And even though I hear Kathy Griffin screaming "ALLEGEDLY!!!" in my own mind: it's not an iffy situation. He SAID he did it, and JB confirmed it with that icky creepy claw visual. (One of the things on my list to UN-SEE).

  • Love 9
Link to comment
Darknight

Darknight

I wonder if JB would be one of these fools that represents himself in court.

And the comments from the thumpers are really disgusting. One woman said she was molested but got over it moved on with the help from God. She didn't need any real therapy because therapist are just out to get money. Another thumper said the victim wants money.

  • Love 9
Link to comment
Loves2Dance

Loves2Dance

Dear Sweet Baby Jesus: please please please let this happen.

This would be perfect!

 

To be honest, this seems like a money grab and since Josh likely doesn't have much, I smell a future book deal or rights to a made for TV movie. I do think the Duggars will want to settle out of court with a NDA signed and filed, I just hope she doesn't cave. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
SomePity1066

SomePity1066

It was over the clothes! She didn't even know since she was asleep. I'm not a mandated reporter, you know.

Well said, dill pickles ! Such a sick, self-serving, smarmy, snake-like way for JB to TRY to have Josh wriggle out of this colossal clusterfuck. 

 

Guilt, admitted guilt, by his first-born son is met from JB with lies, half-truths, excuses, pandering, bizarro-world "Christian" explanations, and the disgusting downplaying/diminishment of what the victims suffered. The worst part is that in his weird, twisted Lego-head-speak and Michelle's adoring gaze, looking like she just got hit by a tranquilizer dart on Wild Kingdom, they both seemed to genuinely believe what they were saying. 

 

Really ? Really ???

 

The only "over and under" that I recognize is the spread at a Steelers game, you sick, demented, hollow shells that masquerade as human beings. 

 

I knew you were bad, bad people when I saw how you mistreat animals. Now you've added people as additional victims of your hubris. You are NOT beyond the law, Mr. and Mrs. Gothard Suck-ups. You'll be reaping what you've sown, and I'll be smiling when you get your due. 

  • Love 23
Link to comment
Loves2Dance

Loves2Dance

Can someone explain the timeline to me? She files a restraining order in 1992 and is talking about her now husband being abusive right after she had a baby. Amy was born in 1986.  Did Deanna file the restraining order 6 years later or does Amy have a sibling?

Amy says she's an only child; my guess is this child was put up for adoption. 

Link to comment
silverspoons

silverspoons

Amy says she's an only child; my guess is this child was put up for adoption. 

I'm surprised if she did put a child up for adoption, nothing has surfaced before this. I'm all for adoption but it is a bit weird if it is a full sibling to Amy so Deanna was already a single mom, that she would not keep a full sibling. Even better that pro-life Jim Bob would not help his sister keep the baby. In 1992 Michelle a bunch of small children and it might have even been beneficial for Michelle to Have Deanna around to help each other. I have always wonder what the relationship was like between Deanna and Michelle back in the early days. Josh and Amy are close in age and Michelle had no family local. Were they close or was Deanna seen as the unwed sinner?

Link to comment
kokapetl

kokapetl

Can someone explain the timeline to me? She files a restraining order in 1992 and is talking about her now husband being abusive right after she had a baby. Amy was born in 1986. Did Deanna file the restraining order 6 years later or does Amy have a sibling?

I think the baby mentioned is Amy, the date of that first threat isn't on the document, but the redaction looks like a scribbled out Amy. It looks like Deanna filed the restraining order in 1992 after a second threat.
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Quof

Quof

This wouldn't fly in the state I am from, I'm not a lawyer but I did call my cousin who is a lawyer and she laughed and said there is no case against the parents

Well, I AM a lawyer (not in Arkansas), and if the facts as presented so far are true, she absolutely has a case against JB and Michelle for knowingly placing her in harm's way. 

  • Love 21
Link to comment
MyNextLifetime

MyNextLifetime

 

I wonder if JB would be one of these fools that represents himself in court.

 

I could picture him saying "If it was over the clothes, the case should be closed" or "If they were asleep, a cent they should not reap"

 

Question for the Mods:  Would it be possible to create a separate Forum for the Legal discussion?  I had a dream it was called The Duggar Courtroom, so I have been reading too much about these oxy-morons.  

 

Thanks!

  • Love 6
Link to comment
GEML

GEML

The other point is, this may not ever NEED to go to court. If a media company is backing the plaintiff (which InTouch might be, quite honestly) this doesn't have to get that far for both sides to get what they want. InTouch wants to sell copies and the plaintiff wants SOME sort of Justice, whatever that might be. This could be resolved out of court through mediation and all three sides are ok with it, if not ecstatic.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Bella

Bella

Question for the Mods:  Would it be possible to create a separate Forum for the Legal discussion?  I had a dream it was called The Duggar Courtroom, so I have been reading too much about these oxy-morons.  

 

Thanks!

 

I ran it by the collective, and we decided not to start a new thread for this.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Oldernowiser

Oldernowiser

I just can't wrap my head around a conversation with the Duggar girls and their parents that goes, "Well, seems like your brother has a little problem where he sneaks around at night and fondles you while you're sleeping. You know, in a way that if a non-family member did we'd have him dragged out and crucified. But since it's your brother, we're just going to give him his own room and put locks on the doors, so be sure to lock it again if you do something dangerous like, you know, go to the bathroom or get a drink of water.

All set? Sweet dreams, girls!"

I'd never close both eyes again and it makes me wonder if the girls started sleeping in their street clothes on their own...

  • Love 15
Link to comment
Honey

Honey

She will probably sue both Josh and his parents.  

There is a case from the 50's that is one of the first cases covered in a Torts class, which at least decades ago was a first year, first semester class, in which a 5 year old is successfully sued for pulling out the chair when an older woman was about to sit.  I think she broke her hip or leg( it has been ages since I studied it, and I don't do tort law).  It is possible that the homeowner's insurance may pay the damages, depending on what policy he has.

 

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/garratt-dailey.html

I can't see their homeowner's insurance paying for this.  Especially since they're being sued due to an illegal activity (molestation).

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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...