If he provides enough information for his story to be checked out, must he include his name?
Yes, it’s pretty detailed, and not giving his name means he’s not trying for personal attention.
Corey Feldman finally decided to drop some names, but in conjunction with some kind of $10 million fundraiser.
Can’t be bothered to read much further…
It’s not anonymous. The article clearly says they know the man’s identity and sought verification for what he said.
Eight former or current employees who worked on House of Cards are alleging harassment by Spacey.
So you’d be fine if a magazine published accusations against you without naming your accuser?
Gotta say, Harvey Weinstein must be breathing a sigh of relief this month. (Yeah, remember him?)
I doubt that there are very many people who want to be in a position where they have an accuser, let alone having that person making statements via a magazine.
But I’m also not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
It doesn’t seem to be too much of a question of whether Mr. Spacey is guilty of at least some of these crimes, nor much doubt whether he’s going to be forced into penance in some way, so whether the public censures him now or after he’s been proclaimed guilty in whatever all criminal or civil cases he’s accused of doesn’t matter terribly. He’s still going to end up bearing it.
I don’t think this is a hill you want to die on. Everything coming out now is consistent with rumors for years and he hasn’t denied anything. It’s like everyone is waking up from a fog and wondering “why did we put up with this for so long?”
Of course not. I’m pretty sure Kevin Spacey isn’t fine with being accused of sexual assault.
If a magazine accused me of a sex crime involving a fourteen year old, I’d get a lawyer and sue them for libel. Because I’m innocent and I therefore know they won’t be able to back up their accusation.
None of which involves the topic of anonymity. If somebody on a online message board posts a claim under a screen name and accuses somebody of a sex crime, that’s an anonymous accusation. But if a person walks into the offices of a magazine or a newspaper or a television studio and identifies himself and accused somebody of a sex crime, it’s not an anonymous accusation. The identity of the person is known even if it isn’t published in the article.
Oh, I’ve no intention of dying on it. I think it’s wonderful that the underside of the movie business which has lain hidden in darkness for a century has now been exposed to the light and that the rapists, molesters and abusers (of whom I have no doubt that Spacey is one) are scurrying around in panic. But none of this justifies a magazine making a serious accusation and concealing the name of the accuser. How do we know the magazine is telling the truth? There’s a long tradition in the business of publishing completely untrue stories just to attract readers. Can we really be sure this isn’t one of those? Unless they give the name of the accuser of course we can’t. If they don’t then this should be seen for exactly what it is. Gossip.
So, Watergate should never have been exposed, either?
Good Lord, the moral of that story is to nip your creepy-ass cousin in the bud while you can
It is often the policy of media outlets to not release the names of sexual assault victims even up to and beyond a trial.
Wow. You know you’re in trouble when the rats abandon ship.
I think it’s kind of like this:
Bison: I’m sorry. I don’t remember any of it.
Chun Li: You don’t remember?
Bison: For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday.
[quote=“Lemur866, post:136, topic:800221”]
I think it’s kind of like this:
Bison: I’m sorry. I don’t remember any of it.
Chun Li: You don’t remember?
Bison: For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday.
He never denied it because he thought to himself “yeah that’s totally something I would do.”
That’s true and if this particular case does come to trial I’ll be glad to give it more credit. Until that point it differs not at all from washroom gossip. Turn it which way you will, anonymous accusations are troubling. (And JFTR I suspect the story is absolutely true. But that isn’t the point.)
Journalists keeping their sources anonymous is in no way the same as “washroom gossip”. Did you miss all of the rest of the article, where they followed up the source’s story and corroborated facts?
Jeez, now Jeremy Piven is being accused of sexual harassment? That’s… actually, yeah, think I saw that one coming.