So does this mean we're canceling his cancelation?
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
84 points (97.7% liked)
World News
38500 readers
2748 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm still having a hard time liking him again after this. Whether or not he committed a crime according to the legal system, he still openly admitted to very predatory behavior. From my understanding of the situation, none of the claims against him were really refuted or disproven, just deemed to be "not that bad, after all", which doesn't really sit right with me.
I probably still won't be watching any of his new stuff, either way. He's still a sex pest.
Not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
It's also important to point out that "not guilty" is only a legal distinction.
He's as innocent as OJ Simpson
It's another way of saying he's for enough money/fame that he passes regardless of where the d20 lands
It's just a lack of hard evidence. The man clearly is a predator.
looks like the court of public opinion had its former ruling overturned by [insert whichever court this took place at]
Nah. People changing minds they've already set, that's a mighty tall task.
So he's been found innocent but something tells me that the internet in its infinite "wisdom" won't change its mind.
It's almost as if ruining (or at least trying to ruin) someone's life based on rumors and hearsay is no big deal. Spacey is rich enough to be able to fight these charges, but how many more people's lives will be ruined simply because people like to grab their pitchforks based solely on a lie?
That’s because anyone with a rational mind won’t be satisfied with the result of our judicial system. It’s a massive joke that benefits those with money.
When you live in a world that is rampant with fraud and corruption, and a world filled with judges and lawyers who are happy to accept a bribe for dishonesty, it’s really really hard to walk away from a court case with a feeling of fairness and honesty.
The court findings here aren’t enough to sway me when I see the level of bullshit that celebrities get away with.
We have too many blind idiots in the world who take things at face value. Don’t be one of those people.
Plus we're talking about things which are by their nature very difficult to prove. It's literally one person's word against another. Or in this case, nine people's word against one. All that this ruling tells us is that there was insufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you think justice systems should adopt a less stringent standard for criminal convictions, like a preponderance of evidence?
No, but that also doesn't mean he's protected from the court of public opinion. Just because a court declares someone is innocent or guilty does not mean that I have to personally accept the court's decision, particularly given how often verdicts can end up being wrong.
Even if Spacey is not proven to be a rapist beyond all reasonable doubt, he is still probably a rapist based on the volume of testimony against him, and that's enough for me to distrust someone.
You say that like the opposing view isn't also the same thing, taking something (in this case, the word of the accusers) at face value.
I don't know Spacey, I have no illusions that I have zero understanding of who he is, but there's no evidence here. People shouldn't be punished for having accusations thrown at them, that's not something they control.
Sure, he could still be a terrible stain on this Earth. So could anyone.
I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding this.
You don't know Spacey and you don't know the accusers. Just because there are 9 of them doesn't make it rape.
I don't have any doubt that he "used" fame and the authority provided by celebrity to get people to agree to things that they may not have really wanted.
There's a chasm between being an egomaniac and being a predator.
I don’t have any doubt that he “used” fame and the authority provided by celebrity to get people to agree to things that they may not have really wanted.
So you believe he is guilty of sexual assault then... okay, I can agree with you there.
A lot of guilty rich people are found innocent and a lot of innocent poor people are found guilty. The justice system is frequently flawed in its execution.
There’s no reason to assume simply because a court doesn’t find him guilty, that he is innocent.
There’s actually some pretty important reasons to assume someone is innocent when a judge says so. Or do you really want to live in a world where everyone rules by consensus that you’re guilty the very minute you’re arrested?
We live in a world with an unjust justice system.
It’s dangerous to implicitly trust such a system.
It's also dangerous to assume that certain groups of people are automatically guilty even after they've had their day in court.
But I know nothing of the UK's system of justice so I'll hear ya out; is there some reason to believe this whole trial was a sham?
Acquittal doesn't mean proved innocent. It only means not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The assumption of innocence until proven guilty is a legal one only.
The first part of your first sentence is true. The the second part of your first sentence is also true. I'm not an expert but I find it plausible that your second sentence is true.
But trying to imply causality between those two sentences is where I wouldn't be so quick.
On a related note, we haven't burned a witch in forever and I've got all this wood stockpiled!
As they say in the Utopian Fiction Warhammer 40,000: "Innocence proves nothing"
There's a big difference between being found innocent and not being a complete piece of shit. This dude was obviously using his power and position to grope people, harass and convince people to enter sexual situations with him. He admits to it and basically just says it was "a pass" and they wanted it.
This might shock you, but a whole lot of people enjoy it.
Ah yes, they enjoyed it so much that they tried to have him put in jail for it. So enjoyable.
Might want to look up the term gold-digger once of these days.
Bring on the House of Cards remake!
From the team that brought you Dexter: New Blood.
Last season was so ass bruh
I actually didnt finish it. I just recommend it up to when Frank gets "there". But it's not a house of cards at that point.
Yeah I never finished the 6th season either. Only the first 5. And then got bored watching 2 eps of s6
So how long till he starts making TV/movies again?
He's already been working on a movie for the last year or so, I believe.
I bet when he walked out of the courtroom his limp disappeared.
Of course the white rapist gets off the hook
Of course...
The justice system is racist
Why are you making this about race and not the fact that he’s rich and famous?
Oh STFU, Danny Masterson was found guilty by the same justice system. You win some, you lose some.
Literally different justice systems actually.
I hope this gets all the press it deserves.
view more: next ›