Kevin Spacey
- Thread starter snapyou
- Start date
People can still believe he's guilty of terrible judgment, abusive, and even criminal behavior. Conviction, or exoneration, is a legal matter. It is related to. but not entirely synonymous, with the question of whether he actually engaged in cruel, unbecoming behavior in his workplace.
Were he found guilty, would you expect Morrissey (or Spacey's other defenders) to "have a word with themselves?"
Are we all obligated to believe that Morrissey was a deviant liar in his dealings with Joyce and Rourke because a judge pronounced it so? I must have missed that memo. So did Moz
People are also free to believe in his vindicated innocence too. but let's not pretend court proceedings are some strident infallible crucible of truth
Skylarker
People come second, or possibly third.
@ DaveJCarr "People are also free to believe in his vindicated innocence too. but let's not pretend court proceedings are some strident infallible crucible of truth"
Court judgements are not and never have been meant to be seen as oracles of immutable fact. They take place because they are the best metric we have come up with for determining truth, and ideally all existing evidence and testimony are factored into the equations before a judgment is made.
So, sure, "people are free to believe..." etc etc etc, fill in the blank. And there will be many who choose to believe the narrative they are most comfortable with. But what a person "wants" to be true and what IS true are often not the same thing.
The point is, gossip sells. And also, on a darker level, there is a base aspect at the core of most humans of a propensity to sooner pillory and banish their peers than to break bread with them.
So unless you are saying that when it comes to a man's career/public reputation, that what people want to believe should take precedence over carefully measured evidence dissected and assessed in a court of law, I'd rethink what you wrote. Because otherwise, we are still in the dark ages.
Court judgements are not and never have been meant to be seen as oracles of immutable fact. They take place because they are the best metric we have come up with for determining truth, and ideally all existing evidence and testimony are factored into the equations before a judgment is made.
So, sure, "people are free to believe..." etc etc etc, fill in the blank. And there will be many who choose to believe the narrative they are most comfortable with. But what a person "wants" to be true and what IS true are often not the same thing.
The point is, gossip sells. And also, on a darker level, there is a base aspect at the core of most humans of a propensity to sooner pillory and banish their peers than to break bread with them.
So unless you are saying that when it comes to a man's career/public reputation, that what people want to believe should take precedence over carefully measured evidence dissected and assessed in a court of law, I'd rethink what you wrote. Because otherwise, we are still in the dark ages.
Last edited:
Skylarker
People come second, or possibly third.
Proclamations of innocence by courts of law mean nothing to these people. All they can do is seethe and drool over the myriad Hester Prynnes that bedevil their heads; phantoms they conjure in order to assert their own imagined moral high ground. That's Leftist Scumbaggery 101...
No, I won't rethink what I wrote. Yes, what people want to believe is true and what is true are often not the same. Spacey was charged with criminal offenses with people who were themselves willing to testify as what they allege Spacey did to them - and deal with all of the pillorying and public spectacles that come with making those allegations, and the prosecutors etc decided there was enough evidence to charge.
That goes beyond mere gossip, though I fully accept that prosecutions are also colored and driven by politics and headline-grabbing aspirations
Spacey has been cleared, he can continue his career, and may himself have legal grounds to sue his accusers for defamation. He'll find plenty of peers still willing to break bread with him. and other peers who will avoid him. As I said before. even if one doesn't believe what he is alleged to have done criminal, there's plenty about his self-professed "Big flirt" ethos in which he made a "clumsy pass" at one of the accusers that would make me less than enthusiastic about working on a film set with him. That's not "banishment" for banishment's sake, but due caution for, at minimum, a self-professed pattern of poor judgment and unprofessional behavior
Skylarker
People come second, or possibly third.
That's all well and good but the man's reputation has been forever tarnished, if not destroyed, based on hearsay. No one even accused him of rape; just of being a little egotistically drunk and flirtacious.
Maybe he was, what, a little obnoxiously forward? If someone makes a pass at you, all you have to do is say, "not interested" and get on with your life. Not hold onto it for 20 years until the sociopolitical climate has become so dumbed down that any male who hits on you is demonized as being a hostile sex-addict pig. Grow a pair and get on with your life, "victim."
Think about this for a second...the producers of House Of Cards, a show that was arguably successful only because of Spacey's presence, actually killed off his character based on nothing but accusations. They changed the entire narrative trajectory of the show because of Spacey's perceived personal life. Think about that for a second. They do not care about story. They do not care about art. They made an axis-tilting shift to the show because of something that had nothing to do with the artistic course they'd heretofore mapped out.
That's grotesque.
The testimony suggests that there may, in fact, have been a problem with Spacey not backing off after assertations of "Not interested" were made, and, indeed engaging in physical aggression before establishing mutual interest. It was not hearsay. Alleged victims came forward about actions Spacey made towards them. at specifically identifiable times and places. There was a disagreement over severity and criminality, (hence legal exoneration but these were not indirect testimonies about things that were alleged to have happened to other people – they were direct testimonies.
As far as House of Cards is concerned, Netflix could have continued with Spacey, if they wanted to. There were no laws preventing that. They made a choice for their own reasons. You might find it unsatisfactory to the artistic vision of the show and its original intention, but what is the inverse scenario? That Netflix be forced to continue working with an individual they didn't want to? How is that right? Aren't you then substituting one mob mentality – one that insists on the absolute separation between art and artists, on conviction before the people that put up the money to make the shows (or the creative staff who work on the show) can choose to take the show in a different direction?
People still make movies with Woody Allen and Roman Polanski and almost everyone I can think of on the so-called "canceled" artist list for their personal foibles. I suspect the same thing will happen to Kevin Spacey.
snapyou
Humdee,dumdee,homocide
"I would like to say that I am enormously grateful to the JURY for having taken the time to examine all of the EVIDENCE and all of the FACTS carefully before they reached their decision,"
Kevin Spacey
My point was that many posters on here were so quick to proclaim Spacey guilty even before any court cases.
Without knowing the FACTS.
That second point you make is bizarre.
The point you made insisting that everyone should "have a word with themselves" is, to me, an equally bizarre claim.
It seems that were he convicted on some counts, Spacey would surely have contested and protested some of those same facts. People like to retroactively claim that the results of any court case bind everyone to an eternal agreement to the absolute truth value of the events, only when the results adhere to however they think the merits of the events should have been adjudicated.
Your point, evidently, was that people shouldn't prejudge. Fine. Mine was that given the claims at trial and Spacey's own testimony, it's fine for people to think he erred egregiously, even criminally. An exoneration does not ameliorate all that. It only establishes a legal finality, just as the outcome of Joyce's court case establishes a legal finality to his claims against Morrissey - and a fiduciary reality for Morrissey, regardless of whatever Morrissey or us, his fans, think about the "facts" as they were presented in that case. And no is, or should be, precluded from talking about those facts or behaviors, as alleged in that proceeding or this one
snapyou
Humdee,dumdee,homocide
The "have a word with themselves " was not meant in judgement but merely to suggest to have an internal debate on whether their assumptions still held after all the facts had been heard.
"Were he convicted?"
He wasn't so you are just making guesses as to the aftermath.
Finally,I really don't see the relevance of the Morrissey case.
So many posters on here BELIEVED him guilty .
Then, would gleefully kick the boot in.
Have a word with yourself"
None of that was meant in judgment? Astonishing.
Speaking for myself, I didn't presume anything, but at the conclusion of the trial, on the evidence presented nonetheless believe he acted unprofessionally, brazenly, and poorly. You are free to trumpet exoneration, as is Spacey. But judging and shaming me or others who dare think otherwise? No. I won't let that pass without remark. And so, I haven't
snapyou
Humdee,dumdee,homocide
Sorry,you do not accept my explanation.
Have a look at some of the 2017 threads on the matter on here.
Many did just accept the accusations and were willing to call Spacey a "sex offender" with no way of knowing the facts of the case.
It seemed to me to be a dangerous step to ignore a basic tenet of our law,"innocent until proven guilty".
Have a look at some of the 2017 threads on the matter on here.
Many did just accept the accusations and were willing to call Spacey a "sex offender" with no way of knowing the facts of the case.
It seemed to me to be a dangerous step to ignore a basic tenet of our law,"innocent until proven guilty".
Sure, but now at the conclusion of trial, and its aftermath do you think irs fair for people to examine all of the testimony, the evidence, etc, and come to their own conclusion about Spacey's behavior, even if it diverges from the wholesale exoneration of the jury verdict?
snapyou
Humdee,dumdee,homocide
Yes,totally fair IF they have EXAMINED all that.
My point was always about the rush to judge and find someone guilty BEFORE any legal proceedings and knowledge of the facts.
Again,my "have a word" was really about trying to highlight that quick to judge mentality and to question oneself over past ways of looking at things.
A bit of self reflection is a good thing. Admitting our mistakes
and learning as we go was what I meant.
And reading your posts I will a have a word with myself tonight.
nicky wire's legs
Christ is king!
I like Kevin spacey! Always have!
gashonthenail
You will own nothing and you will be happy...
I thought Douglas Murray verbalised very well the problem with the charges against Mr Spacey. They were incredibly flimsy and never should have been brought by the CPS. They were only brought because he is a famous actor and they wanted to 'get' him. Total waste of tax payers money and legal time. The Rapp allegation was a civil trial and his to bring if he wanted, but it probably never should have come to court given the weakness of the case - which was the main point made by Morrissey when talking about the allegation in his now infamous interview. As Douglas Murray says in this interview - this is what happens when as a society we throw out the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' and replace it with the idea that 'the victim should always be believed'. Throwing out any idea of justice and legal process only ends up by abusing the innocent and destroying livelihoods and lives.
Skylarker
People come second, or possibly third.
Woody Allen has never, ever done anything wrong. Even a cursory glance at the Mia Scarecrow debacle reveals her immediately as a vindictive, delusional, conniving, bitter old bitch.
Skylarker
People come second, or possibly third.
Douglas Murray rules
