The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

[devogue]

It really is horrifying to witness the extrajudicial downfall of Harvey Weinstein.

In a sophisticated civilisation, is it not a fundamental tenet that issues of criminality be treated with the utmost rigour ad seriousness within the framework of a legal system?

While it seems that there may be plenty of fire creating this smoke, Weinstein's right to defend himself is being destroyed by a media clamour fuelled by Hollywood stars.

If Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie were assaulted by him then they should press charges against him. They should not get a free pass to make such serious claims in the media, and the New Yorkers claim of multiple rapes should not be used to sell papers with shock value but should also be reported to the police so judicial action can proceed. As for the torrent of disowning and condemnation from Ben Affleck, George Clooney and others, they should be silent at this stage. Their comments add nothing but extra hysteria.

We are living in very dangerous times and we need to step back. Harvey Weinstein's right to due process, to a calm, methodical weighing of the evidence against him is paramount - he may indeed be guilty but the media need to step the fuck back and allow some air in to this.

[cronus]

He hasn't produced much lately. Deserves a fall having produced so much hyper-violent 'entertainment' and I guess, with the arrival of Trump, this is something Hollywood agrees with me. I'm also guessing there's gonna be a sea change in Hollywood movies where 'thinking' comes back in vogue?

[Strontium Dog]

I suppose upwards of three dozen wealthy, successful women who don't need the money or the attention could be making it all up. But it has to go down as somewhat unlikely.

[JimC]

I suppose upwards of three dozen wealthy, successful women who don't need the money or the attention could be making it all up. But it has to go down as somewhat unlikely.

As far as the women pressing charges, either at the time or now, it seems he usually acted when no other witnesses were around, and that it typically involved some groping or masturbation, so no clear forensics...

[Feck]

The levels of hypocrisy are overwhelming .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41589352

[pErvinalia]

While you are right that in an ideal society this shouldn't happen, my care factor is pretty fucking low on the scale of things to get outraged about.

[Tyrannical]

Should get more interesting as more and more people talk, and then those people make more and more excuses for not talking earlier.

[devogue]

Should get more interesting as more and more people talk, and then those people make more and more excuses for not talking earlier.

They don't have to make excuses. They are now exalted as brave.

[Hermit]

Should get more interesting as more and more people talk, and then those people make more and more excuses for not talking earlier.

Weinstein. That's a Jewish name, isn't it? And wouldn't you think that makes him guilty?

[Rum]

The outrage does seem somewhat out of proportion. He may be a slimeball, but headline news?

[Svartalf]

Well, while the news are all over that particular slimeball, they are not covering worse ones which are still in activity and which desire relative obscurity (very relative when it's Frump and Tuppence)

[Hermit]

It really is horrifying to witness the extrajudicial downfall of Harvey Weinstein.

Lynching, huh? Poor Harvey. Through his spokesperson, Sally Hofmeister, he let it be known that "Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein" and "Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual." So, no actual rapes. At least, that is what she said he believes. But just before he was fired from the company he co-founded Weinstein shot himself in the foot. He sent an email to agents and industry executives, declaring among other things that "A lot of the allegations are false". So, at least some were not by his own admission. Presumably, all the ones alleging actual rapes were, but Weinstein could not bring himself to actually say so.

Finally, there's this clanger: "I came of age in the ’60s and ’70s, when all the rules about behaviour and workplaces were different. That was the culture then.

I have since learned it’s not an excuse, in the office – or out of it." Hey, Harvey, it's 2017 this year. Accepting for the sake of your argument that sexual harassment was OK in the 60s and 70s, who do you expect to believe you that it took you 37 years to discover that "the rules about behaviour and workplaces" had changed?

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of being a monstrous sexual predator, and you don't need a concurring verdict from a court of law to figure that out. His own words are sufficient, even before reading his grovelling plea to be given a second chance. And he's not being lynched, ffs. That's just typically Devogueian hyperbole. He's been fired from his job, and not before time.

[NineBerry]

It's natural that public figures get more public scrutiny when they do something wrong.

[Svartalf]

oops double post, sorry

[pErvinalia]

Well, while the news are all over that particular slimeball, they are not covering worse ones which are still in activity and which desire relative obscurity (very relative when it's Frump and Tuppence)

Yeah. Let's not forget that the President of the whole nation was caught on tape advocating what Weinstein was doing. Pretty sad state of affairs.