It isn't.Allstar wrote:Law is just ignorant and insensitive. I have empathy for the alleged victims but at the same time I am uncomfortable throwing vile words at Affleck because I dunno what happened on that set and I have no way of knowing. In other words I am not defending Affleck by any means but I am also not condemning him guilty like many people are. I also don't get how giving him an Oscar for an acting performance is in any way condoning sexual harassment.
All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Joined: July 2010
Location: Moonlight Motel
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
If there really is no proof then you can win these cases pretty easily without settling for money. Settling for money is NEVER ideal because you're basically admitting partial guilt.Law wrote:Women on set claimed he did, took him to court, had no proof, settled for money, they moved on.Cilogy wrote:so did he actually do that or are people just claiming he did
There are only two scenarios in which you'd settle for money...
a) there's a considerable amount of proof that while it may not break the case it will severely damage your image and you'll end up paying compensations regardless
b) proof or not, you just want to deny the media the potential to create a bigger mess, so you shut down the whole thing as early as possible
these two scenarios could very well work together hand in hand. whatever happened with Affleck we don't know... but to say that there is definitely no proof is a tad ridiculous.
Joined: August 2012
I mean come on. It's natural to feel uncomfortable. Just like some people like to point out that there isn't any proof that he's guilty, once again, there's also zero proof that he's innocent. So while it might be silly to trash him so openly, it's just as silly to blindly defend him. I used to love him and I'm uncomfortable. It obviously would be so much easier if we just knew. But once again, the fact that they both settled, I mean, in itself could allude to the possibility of something happening indeed. I mean the tinfoil hat me also thinks that MAYBE if he's innocent, he could've settled because if he tried winning the case, it all could've gone public fast and we all know how media can be toxic. It didn't save him in the end anyway. But yeah, I honestly do find it a little problematic that some people are ready to defend him so openly. You don't know him personally, why are you so sure. At least admit the possibility of such stuff happening.
Joined: February 2011
If you don't prove your innocence in court then you shouldn't be surprised about others being suspecious of your guilt. I know Singer never settled any agreement out of court and he presented proof for his innocence so that's something you can label under "innocent until proven guilty" type of thing.£
Joined: January 2012