Not when your remaining accusers dropped their charges against you after a few of them died in mysterious accidents after you put out a weirdly threatening video on Christmas.
If my only choice in this matter is to either see his movies or not, I will not. On matter of Hollywood, it’s best to assume that they’re all guilty of something if their success outweighs their talent. Why does Jared Leto keep getting work despite being terrible to work with? Could it be his private sex cult island?
They already answered you. They don’t feel that all of Kevin Spacey’s accusers actually got their “day in court” because there’s evidence to show that they were coerced into dropping their cases, and for some of them they died. So no, “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” doesn’t apply when we didn’t get an actual conclusion to most of the cases. There’s a vast difference between being found “not guilty” and “having charges dismissed”.
But apparently nuance is too much for you and you want simple hard fast rules that apply to everything. In which case, maybe read the thousands of years of moral philosophy dealing with that exact topic and see if you can reduce all of it to a single platitude. No one’s done it before, but apparently your smartass is up for the challenge since you’re the resident authority around here.
Innocent until proven guilty is not a moral code, it’s a legal one. Courts do not dictate reality or morality, they are obviously imperfect social constructs and to pretend otherwise is foolish.
You seem to be saying you don’t understand the concept or “innocent until proven guilty.” That applies to legal repercussions. It doesn’t mean that a man with many accusations of sexual assault deserves the benefit of the doubt. I find the numerous accusations against him credible, and I found his denials uncredible. Especially when you consider several of his accusers have died under questionable circumstances.
I find any accusations aggainst any celebrity have zero value unless proven in court beyond all reasonable doubt.
People who live off of lawsuits do exist.
Except the accusation came from another celebrity, and started a very long time before the lawsuit. Going public hurt the accusers career, and after Rapp lost his court case, 14 other victims came forward. They all described, independently, the same pattern of behavior.
Kevin Spacey aside, you seem to be saying you don’t support the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Not when your remaining accusers dropped their charges against you after a few of them died in mysterious accidents after you put out a weirdly threatening video on Christmas.
and one that “moved past your assault on him”- aka RAPP
Just say “no.”
Principles that only apply when it’s easy aren’t principles.
You’re applying a moral code to me that I haven’t agreed to. You don’t know what my principles are.
This.
Followed by this.
Is highly suspicious.
If my only choice in this matter is to either see his movies or not, I will not. On matter of Hollywood, it’s best to assume that they’re all guilty of something if their success outweighs their talent. Why does Jared Leto keep getting work despite being terrible to work with? Could it be his private sex cult island?
I’m literally asking you what moral code you adhere to. Is “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” something you agree with, or not?
This isn’t the court of law and my judgement does not have the same weight as a juror.
Also, what is and is not legal is not the same as what is and is not moral.
They already answered you. They don’t feel that all of Kevin Spacey’s accusers actually got their “day in court” because there’s evidence to show that they were coerced into dropping their cases, and for some of them they died. So no, “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” doesn’t apply when we didn’t get an actual conclusion to most of the cases. There’s a vast difference between being found “not guilty” and “having charges dismissed”.
But apparently nuance is too much for you and you want simple hard fast rules that apply to everything. In which case, maybe read the thousands of years of moral philosophy dealing with that exact topic and see if you can reduce all of it to a single platitude. No one’s done it before, but apparently your smartass is up for the challenge since you’re the resident authority around here.
Innocent until proven guilty is not a moral code, it’s a legal one. Courts do not dictate reality or morality, they are obviously imperfect social constructs and to pretend otherwise is foolish.
Is Redditor a slur here 😝😝😝
You seem to be saying you don’t understand the concept or “innocent until proven guilty.” That applies to legal repercussions. It doesn’t mean that a man with many accusations of sexual assault deserves the benefit of the doubt. I find the numerous accusations against him credible, and I found his denials uncredible. Especially when you consider several of his accusers have died under questionable circumstances.
I find any accusations aggainst any celebrity have zero value unless proven in court beyond all reasonable doubt.
People who live off of lawsuits do exist.
Except the accusation came from another celebrity, and started a very long time before the lawsuit. Going public hurt the accusers career, and after Rapp lost his court case, 14 other victims came forward. They all described, independently, the same pattern of behavior.