What is your opinion of male celebrities who despite being found not guilty of their sexual assault allegations are still canceled and banned from their industries?

MistyMaisel · 2023-05-15T01:35:26+00:00

It's really tough because the legal system isn't necessarily a fabulous way to catch abusive, predatory, or rapey types. In some senses, destroying reputation is the only justice that finds many of these people.

It is however, quite sad if it got the wrong people....I just tend to think that's quite rare when the people accused have like...that many women accusing them. But if it were to happen, I feel sorry for them

AngeCruelle · 2023-05-15T01:47:37+00:00

I think "not guilty" stopped meaning much to the general public after (in)famous cases like O.J., Casey Anthony, etc. Like you will literally have jurors admitting they don't necessarily think the person is innocent, they just don't think there was enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

So where does that leave us? Don't worry he's only possibly a rapist? Uh...okay.

Safinated · 2023-05-15T01:22:05+00:00

They still have jobs, fans, supporters, and income, just not a good reputation. You do know both of those men had multiple accusers, right? Batali’s were in the double digits

eefr · 2023-05-15T03:31:38+00:00

I don't know anything about the specific cases you cite.

But proving someone guilty of a criminal act in a court of law requires a very high standard of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt. It's hard to get there for a reason, because the consequence is that the state can restrict someone's basic rights as a results.

When the consequences aren't so dire, courts apply a lower standard of proof. Up here in Canada, we call that standard "proof on a balance of probabilities"; Americans call it "a preponderance of the evidence." Basically it means something is more than 50% likely to be true.

That's why OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder criminally, but found liable for murder civilly, for example. He was most likely her murderer according to the lawsuit, but the criminal jury found that he didn't meet the very high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So being found not guilty in a criminal court does not mean someone is innocent.

It's also worth remembering that in a criminal trial, some evidence may be found inadmissible for a wide variety of reasons (e.g., it was collected in a manner that violated the accused's constitutional rights); if the trier of fact could rely on all the evidence, it's possible the verdict would be different.

So while I don't know anything about the specific cases you've cited, being found not guilty in criminal court does not exonerate someone of moral blame and responsibilities, and should not necessarily shield them from informal consequences in the real world.

I have had slightly too much barleywine so I hope this makes sense.

-Shes-A-Carnival · 2023-05-15T01:54:43+00:00

there is nothing I could possibly care about less than "celebrities" in general and them losing their gigs because of reputation in specific. you live by public opinion, you die by public opinion. none of my beeswax

MiddleZealousideal89 · 2023-05-15T03:00:10+00:00

This is a tough one, I'll admit. Being found not guilty doesn't necessarily mean you didn't do whatever you were accused of doing. Maybe the prosecution didn't do a good job, maybe there wasn't enough compelling evidence, maybe the jury/judge was very sympathetic to the accused, and maybe they actually are completely innocent. I don't think anyone thinks the justice system is infallible and that innocent people don't get locked up and that guilty people don't walk free. So I can understand why teams and companies would be wary to re-sign someone that has been on trial for something truly awful like murder or sexual assault. Yes, the court found them not guilty, but that dark cloud of ''maybe the courts fucked up'' is going to hang around these people and most businesses would want to avoid having that cloud hanging over them as well.

Do I think it's fair? Yes and no. I think it's fair for these businesses to not want to work with you if you're going to affect them negatively. Is it fair on a purely human level? That would depend on whether the person actually did it or not. If you didn't do it and you avoided jail, but some people think less of you, that's awful. If you did do it and you avoided jail, but some people think less of you, that's tough, but you managed to avoid prison, so maybe count your blessings. These dudes have money, they'll be fine.

87AudreyHorne · 2023-05-15T08:01:06+00:00

Not sure about these cases, but often there is a sufficient public evidence the person is guilty but either what they did isn't criminal or the case got old, some evidence/testimonies can't be used in court etc. Shit even Cosby is out although he did get convicted. Not to mention often the cases that go to court are parts of private litigation and not focused on overall proof of innocence or guilt

For example the two cases I am more deeply aware of in the last few years are Marilyn Manson, who seems very obviously guilty but I don't think he will be legally convicted for anything, and Johnny Depp (that one isn't just sexual but in general) for whom most people think was exonerated but if you look at the evidence still comes out looking really gross.

Then you have someone like Louis C.K. whose case I don't think was ever legal but he pretty much confessed it was true so it's up to public to decide if they find that understandable or too much for them.

Just saying, legal system often focuses on very specific cases and types of evidence and not what the public think is ok or fucked up

HobbitShaker88 · 2023-05-15T05:50:10+00:00

If the evidence is obvious they absolutely deserve it. It depends because the legal system isnt great.

neetykeeno · 2023-05-15T03:27:22+00:00

Being found Not Guilty doesn't mean everyone just forgets the view through the little window into your bullshit that was very publicly seen during the court case. A lot of people are profoundly unlikable but we don't get to see how unlikable they are most of the time. The court response isn't going to ever be exactly the same as the public response.

harmonica2 · 2023-05-15T04:18:36+00:00

Would it be better if the media was not allowed to report on cases, unless there was a guitly verdict? Would this make it better for the wrongfully accused?

januaryphilosopher · 2023-05-15T09:13:00+00:00

The word "cancelled" is thrown around too lightly these days. If you're able to complain about being cancelled and people listen to you, you are not cancelled. It's just that not everyone likes you. And any scandal, whatever your involvement in it, will affect your career when you're in the public eye, although these people still end up with better careers and more money than most of us could dream of. There's also the fact that a not guilty verdict in court doesn't mean you're not guilty or did nothing wrong, especially when it comes to sex crimes.

Financial_Leave4411 · 2023-05-15T02:14:25+00:00

I haven’t thought about it because I don’t follow celebrities (actors, singers or any kind of sports ball player). The closest thing I can think of are authors or influencers that have a checkered past but I still support them by consuming their content, buying their books and sometimes their merch. This is because I focus on what they are producing and how it affects my life in a positive way over who they are as a person. Overall I am looking to enjoy the product not go on a date with them. I wouldn’t consider someone with a questionable past as someone I would ever date. Best to stay single than take the risk.

satisfiedmind- · 2023-05-15T11:38:59+00:00

Surely by red pill philosophy it’s their fault for putting themselves in a situation where they were alone with a woman and opening themselves up to accusations?

Personally I am more concerned about women who can’t have the careers they wanted because some low life man knocked them up then ran away from their responsibilities. Or the women who have ptsd from sexual assaults.

AstronautLoveShack · 2023-05-15T13:36:08+00:00

Honestly I’m wary of some of them. Money and fame can buy a lot of allowances. Look how long Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were walking around free before they were finally convicted of multiple assaults. Others however, where the accusation seemed isolated to one person and the accuser seems sketchy, I’m happy they were vindicated.

AutoModerator · 2023-05-15T01:19:29+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

nicoleberry16 · 2023-05-21T00:09:51+00:00

I feel like it's not a really common occurrence (or rather it's pretty exaggerated). Women should still be encouraged to open up because the risk of false allegations still outweighs the risk of women being kept in silence.

Comments