You have crew in the game like the Orion Slaver, various Ferengi traditionalists, torturers like Gul Madred, advocates of Genocide (the Founder, commander Dolim), and other ilk in the collection of fictional characters in this game. Shall we go after Colonel Karr? He is wearing an SS uniform.
Surely you delineate between a fictional character doing fictional things to other fictional characters and real people causing real harm to other real people.
Don't worry it will be like that in those places soon enough.
The law probably won't change. It's been in place for hundreds of years and been successful. The American founding fathers simply made a huge mistake, but it may get rectified soon.
It's awfully strange to see Trump doing something positive and progressive, but I hope that he is successful. It's equally strange to see the other (supposedly progressive) party opposing him. It just goes to show that they like to oppose each other for no apparent reason.
You realize what's driving that is the fact he's upset that investigative journalists keep reporting on all of his terrible behavior stretching back decades? Or simply that they are reporting anything less than flattering to him or his Administration, whatsoever? His interest in "reforming" libel laws in the United States is both an intimidation tactic as well as a representation of his genuine interest in obscuring the truth, and making the truth much more difficult to report without the threat of adverse legal action.
For what it's worth, these laws are unlikely to go anywhere. The statutes and case law surrounding libel and slander have gone through the wringer and been threatened multiple times throughout US history, in almost every generation, and they are still standing. The more Trump mewls about it, the weaker he looks (as President of the United States, his speech is essentially the most powerful and protected of all), and the more money and support will flow to civil liberties and free speech organizations. It's a total loser of an issue.
First Officer - Task Force April
Squadron Leader - [TFA] Bateson’s Bulldogs
Also, in the interest of posting something less tangential, I voted no because I think the character can typically be separated from the actor or actress. There are limits to that---for example, if the actor or actress themselves *created* the character (an example would be Bill Cosby's portrayal of Dr. Cliff Huxtable), then it's a different matter. And I admit that the royalties issue does muddy the waters and give me pause. That said, I don't think any of the names floating around this discussion have earned their characters a banhammer from STT . I acknowledge that this is a subjective call on my part, but I wouldn't hesitate to use and enjoy any of these cards in game.
First Officer - Task Force April
Squadron Leader - [TFA] Bateson’s Bulldogs
I have no problem separating real people from characters they portray. I don't think any character should be off limits because of something their portrayer did or didn't do.
Though, I do think that any actor involved in such a situation should not get any royalties for any usage until such point that they are found not guilty of what they are accused of doing. If they are found guilty, then the funds should be used to go to the victims.
I am not doubting you, I just was not able to find anything besides being a conservative.
I honestly don't recall. It was years ago that I read it. Murdoch and Barclay were two fantastic characters and I was shocked when I came across it. IIRC I found it around the same time Dirk Benedict when on a mini-meltdown about RDM recasting Starbuck as a woman.
Actually in all interviews that I have read and since re-researched Melinda Culea only calls out the late George Peppard (who played Hannibal Smith) as the one who objected to woman on the show. He supposedly stated that he did not like having a female lead on the show. There were some other issues as well where she had some disputes with the producers who would not let her participate in fight scenes.
I actually asked Mr Shultz about this in person, as well, at a con and had a very interesting conversation with him on this and other topics. I hope someday to run across Culea with the current trend of nostalgia cons, it may just be a matter of time.
Don't worry it will be like that in those places soon enough.
The law probably won't change. It's been in place for hundreds of years and been successful. The American founding fathers simply made a huge mistake, but it may get rectified soon.
It's awfully strange to see Trump doing something positive and progressive, but I hope that he is successful. It's equally strange to see the other (supposedly progressive) party opposing him. It just goes to show that they like to oppose each other for no apparent reason.
You realize what's driving that is the fact he's upset that investigative journalists keep reporting on all of his terrible behavior stretching back decades? Or simply that they are reporting anything less than flattering to him or his Administration, whatsoever? His interest in "reforming" libel laws in the United States is both an intimidation tactic as well as a representation of his genuine interest in obscuring the truth, and making the truth much more difficult to report without the threat of adverse legal action.
For what it's worth, these laws are unlikely to go anywhere. The statutes and case law surrounding libel and slander have gone through the wringer and been threatened multiple times throughout US history, in almost every generation, and they are still standing. The more Trump mewls about it, the weaker he looks (as President of the United States, his speech is essentially the most powerful and protected of all), and the more money and support will flow to civil liberties and free speech organizations. It's a total loser of an issue.
Positive reforms can come from less than honourable motives. That's been proven multiple times throughout history.
Free speech shouldn't include making damaging claims against someone without any proof. That's been a cornerstone of modern democracy since the Ancient Greeks and has remained so to this day, with the exception of a notable few.
There's nothing in British style libel law that would prevent journalists from reporting negative stories about Trump (god knows there are a lot of them), as long as they have done their due diligence in obtaining correct information.
What fuels so much of this 'fake news' and distrust of the media is the fact that there is no filter. Consumers have no way of knowing if the news that they see is true, like they do in Canada. There's political spin here, don't get me wrong, but they are all reporting on the same set of facts.
Don't worry it will be like that in those places soon enough.
The law probably won't change. It's been in place for hundreds of years and been successful. The American founding fathers simply made a huge mistake, but it may get rectified soon.
It's awfully strange to see Trump doing something positive and progressive, but I hope that he is successful. It's equally strange to see the other (supposedly progressive) party opposing him. It just goes to show that they like to oppose each other for no apparent reason.
You realize what's driving that is the fact he's upset that investigative journalists keep reporting on all of his terrible behavior stretching back decades? Or simply that they are reporting anything less than flattering to him or his Administration, whatsoever? His interest in "reforming" libel laws in the United States is both an intimidation tactic as well as a representation of his genuine interest in obscuring the truth, and making the truth much more difficult to report without the threat of adverse legal action.
For what it's worth, these laws are unlikely to go anywhere. The statutes and case law surrounding libel and slander have gone through the wringer and been threatened multiple times throughout US history, in almost every generation, and they are still standing. The more Trump mewls about it, the weaker he looks (as President of the United States, his speech is essentially the most powerful and protected of all), and the more money and support will flow to civil liberties and free speech organizations. It's a total loser of an issue.
Positive reforms can come from less than honourable motives. That's been proven multiple times throughout history.
Free speech shouldn't include making damaging claims against someone without any proof. That's been a cornerstone of modern democracy since the Ancient Greeks and has remained so to this day, with the exception of a notable few.
There's nothing in British style libel law that would prevent journalists from reporting negative stories about Trump (god knows there are a lot of them), as long as they have done their due diligence in obtaining correct information.
What fuels so much of this 'fake news' and distrust of the media is the fact that there is no filter. Consumers have no way of knowing if the news that they see is true, like they do in Canada. There's political spin here, don't get me wrong, but they are all reporting on the same set of facts.
You can't say the accusers have no proof when their word and testimony is proof, especially when multiple accusers make similar accusations. In these cases there is often no way to get indisputable physical proof and it almost always comes down to whether you believe the accuser or the accused. Keep in mind that many of these accused people have forced their victims to sign non disclosure agreements so that these predators could attack more people. Also keep in mind that people like Harvey Weinstein and others used their power and influence to destroy the careers of women and men that refused their unwanted advances/attacks. This is a very tough issue and one that we as a society need to keep discussing so that we can find ways to protect those attacked and those wrongly accused. Just remember that very few predators admit to their misdeeds and they have been very good at covering them up and intimidating those that they have attacked from coming forward. I have a feeling there are far more evil attackers that have escaped justice and not been publically accused than innocent people that have been publically wrongly accused.
Don't worry it will be like that in those places soon enough.
The law probably won't change. It's been in place for hundreds of years and been successful. The American founding fathers simply made a huge mistake, but it may get rectified soon.
It's awfully strange to see Trump doing something positive and progressive, but I hope that he is successful. It's equally strange to see the other (supposedly progressive) party opposing him. It just goes to show that they like to oppose each other for no apparent reason.
You realize what's driving that is the fact he's upset that investigative journalists keep reporting on all of his terrible behavior stretching back decades? Or simply that they are reporting anything less than flattering to him or his Administration, whatsoever? His interest in "reforming" libel laws in the United States is both an intimidation tactic as well as a representation of his genuine interest in obscuring the truth, and making the truth much more difficult to report without the threat of adverse legal action.
For what it's worth, these laws are unlikely to go anywhere. The statutes and case law surrounding libel and slander have gone through the wringer and been threatened multiple times throughout US history, in almost every generation, and they are still standing. The more Trump mewls about it, the weaker he looks (as President of the United States, his speech is essentially the most powerful and protected of all), and the more money and support will flow to civil liberties and free speech organizations. It's a total loser of an issue.
Positive reforms can come from less than honourable motives. That's been proven multiple times throughout history.
Free speech shouldn't include making damaging claims against someone without any proof. That's been a cornerstone of modern democracy since the Ancient Greeks and has remained so to this day, with the exception of a notable few.
There's nothing in British style libel law that would prevent journalists from reporting negative stories about Trump (god knows there are a lot of them), as long as they have done their due diligence in obtaining correct information.
What fuels so much of this 'fake news' and distrust of the media is the fact that there is no filter. Consumers have no way of knowing if the news that they see is true, like they do in Canada. There's political spin here, don't get me wrong, but they are all reporting on the same set of facts.
You can't say the accusers have no proof when their word and testimony is proof, especially when multiple accusers make similar accusations. In these cases there is often no way to get indisputable physical proof and it almost always comes down to whether you believe the accuser or the accused. Keep in mind that many of these accused people have forced their victims to sign non disclosure agreements so that these predators could attack more people. Also keep in mind that people like Harvey Weinstein and others used their power and influence to destroy the careers of women and men that refused their unwanted advances/attacks. This is a very tough issue and one that we as a society need to keep discussing so that we can find ways to protect those attacked and those wrongly accused. Just remember that very few predators admit to their misdeeds and they have been very good at covering them up and intimidating those that they have attacked from coming forward. I have a feeling there are far more evil attackers that have escaped justice and not been publically accused than innocent people that have been publically wrongly accused.
The part that I bolded is not an acceptable reason for fostering an environment where false accusations are not stopped and/or punished. Similar arguments are made about the death penalty and I don't buy them either. Sure the US executes many innocent people, but it's ok because they get some bad ones too. That's not the right way to look at it.
Really, the proof is in the pudding in these other countries. Victims of assault in Canada and the UK are far more likely to state their case in the court of law because they are given a fair shake and not exposed to a media circus and/or smear campaigns. There are also far fewer false allegations made. There are a lot of improvements to be made, but it's an unquestionably better result for everyone.
Really, this has to be solved at a grassroots level and that's not being done in the U.S. These disgusting media crusades have only made things worse and created an extremely adversarial environment that has and will only result in negative changes.
If sufficient libel laws had been in place to protect victims of Harvey Weinstein, it is likely that they would have come forward long ago. It goes both ways. It's a disgusting and backwards system that needs to be addressed. Your founding fathers would be ashamed to see their beliefs twisted like this.
You can't say the accusers have no proof when their word and testimony is proof, especially when multiple accusers make similar accusations. In these cases there is often no way to get indisputable physical proof and it almost always comes down to whether you believe the accuser or the accused. Keep in mind that many of these accused people have forced their victims to sign non disclosure agreements so that these predators could attack more people. Also keep in mind that people like Harvey Weinstein and others used their power and influence to destroy the careers of women and men that refused their unwanted advances/attacks. This is a very tough issue and one that we as a society need to keep discussing so that we can find ways to protect those attacked and those wrongly accused. Just remember that very few predators admit to their misdeeds and they have been very good at covering them up and intimidating those that they have attacked from coming forward. I have a feeling there are far more evil attackers that have escaped justice and not been publically accused than innocent people that have been publically wrongly accused.
Sorry, but this entire post smacks of this:
I don’t doubt for a second that there are a ton of unreported sex crimes - particularly among the rich and powerful in the entertainment industry - but we cannot accept an accusation = proof by default. See also: Brian Banks.
An accusation is not proof and it is stupid to even suggest it.
If you believe an accusation without evidence or investigation you are stuck in the ages where we burned women at the stake for being accused of witchcraft
An accusation is not proof and it is stupid to even suggest it.
If you believe an accusation without evidence or investigation you are stuck in the ages where we burned women at the stake for being accused of witchcraft
While I agree with the assertion, Salem witch hunts were not exclusively women nor were they burned at the stake (although it makes for better TV). I think most were hanged.
An accusation is not proof and it is stupid to even suggest it.
If you believe an accusation without evidence or investigation you are stuck in the ages where we burned women at the stake for being accused of witchcraft
While I agree with the assertion, Salem witch hunts were not exclusively women nor were they burned at the stake (although it makes for better TV). I think most were hanged.
Yeah I think most of the witch burnings were in Europe... Germany and I think the Dutch did one.
I voted before I had considered royalties. My stance at that time was mostly "no", tempered with a bit of "I can concieve of someone going far enough that their infamy eclipses their character".
I can certainly understand a company wanting to distance itself from making payments to people that a large portion of their customers may want to boycott.
If sufficient libel laws had been in place to protect victims of Harvey Weinstein, it is likely that they would have come forward long ago.
The main reason Weinstein's accusers stayed quiet so long was that he had not just the power to ruin them, but also the power to make them.
Imagine I have the power to get you your dream job. And now imagine you have landed in a position to do me a favor: you'll keep quiet about an illegal thing I did. How heinous does the thing have to be before you decide you'd rather become a farmer.
Because that's the choice they faced: go along and have him helping their career, or come forward and have him do everything in his considerable power to see they never work in movies again.
A lot of bad people doing terrible things. And what are the victims left with? A legal system that often ignores them or blames them for what was done to them. People that attack others and use money to escape any consequences. It is ridiculous to talk about strengthening libel laws while the legal system needs serious fixing. And how would you prove libel? It would be the same problem as victims not being able to prove an attack. Two people saying their sides of the story and juries having to believe one or the other. There is far too much abuse and cruelty going on in the world today and I refuse to shut down one of the only avenues left to those that have been attacked. Not getting media attention is how so many serial predators and institutions have gotten away with their crimes and continued to commit more crimes. We as a society should talk about how to fix the legal system and make sure that those attacked are able to get justice and those that are falsely accused can be vindicated. But strengthening libel laws so that rich serial predators can sue and use lawyers to threaten and intimidate their victims into silence only makes the situation far worse.
A lot of bad people doing terrible things. And what are the victims left with? A legal system that often ignores them or blames them for what was done to them. People that attack others and use money to escape any consequences. It is ridiculous to talk about strengthening libel laws while the legal system needs serious fixing. And how would you prove libel? It would be the same problem as victims not being able to prove an attack. Two people saying their sides of the story and juries having to believe one or the other. There is far too much abuse and cruelty going on in the world today and I refuse to shut down one of the only avenues left to those that have been attacked. Not getting media attention is how so many serial predators and institutions have gotten away with their crimes and continued to commit more crimes. We as a society should talk about how to fix the legal system and make sure that those attacked are able to get justice and those that are falsely accused can be vindicated. But strengthening libel laws so that rich serial predators can sue and use lawyers to threaten and intimidate their victims into silence only makes the situation far worse.
The two problems are not mutually exclusive. The legal system has to be fair and allow accusers to come forward in private without media scrutiny. You are wrong that having fair libel laws would make the situation worse. It has made the situation better in countries that have them. It's hard to imagine a more dysfunctional scenario than what we see in the United States. It's very disturbing from the outside looking in.
A lot of bad people doing terrible things. And what are the victims left with? A legal system that often ignores them or blames them for what was done to them. People that attack others and use money to escape any consequences. It is ridiculous to talk about strengthening libel laws while the legal system needs serious fixing. And how would you prove libel? It would be the same problem as victims not being able to prove an attack. Two people saying their sides of the story and juries having to believe one or the other. There is far too much abuse and cruelty going on in the world today and I refuse to shut down one of the only avenues left to those that have been attacked. Not getting media attention is how so many serial predators and institutions have gotten away with their crimes and continued to commit more crimes. We as a society should talk about how to fix the legal system and make sure that those attacked are able to get justice and those that are falsely accused can be vindicated. But strengthening libel laws so that rich serial predators can sue and use lawyers to threaten and intimidate their victims into silence only makes the situation far worse.
The two problems are not mutually exclusive. The legal system has to be fair and allow accusers to come forward in private without media scrutiny. You are wrong that having fair libel laws would make the situation worse. It has made the situation better in countries that have them. It's hard to imagine a more dysfunctional scenario than what we see in the United States. It's very disturbing from the outside looking in.
What would be fair libel laws and how would you prove libel? You would have to prove libel in courts which would favor the party with the most money to get the best lawyers. I am concerned with strengthening libel laws when the largest voice for stronger libel laws is Donald Trump, a man accused of groping dozens of women, lost dozens of lawsuits for mistreatment of people working for him, endorses a man for Senate who was accused of attacking minors, defends a man in his White House that is accused of beating his wife, and who frequently uses derogatory insults towards women in the media and on twitter.
A lot of bad people doing terrible things. And what are the victims left with? A legal system that often ignores them or blames them for what was done to them. People that attack others and use money to escape any consequences. It is ridiculous to talk about strengthening libel laws while the legal system needs serious fixing. And how would you prove libel? It would be the same problem as victims not being able to prove an attack. Two people saying their sides of the story and juries having to believe one or the other. There is far too much abuse and cruelty going on in the world today and I refuse to shut down one of the only avenues left to those that have been attacked. Not getting media attention is how so many serial predators and institutions have gotten away with their crimes and continued to commit more crimes. We as a society should talk about how to fix the legal system and make sure that those attacked are able to get justice and those that are falsely accused can be vindicated. But strengthening libel laws so that rich serial predators can sue and use lawyers to threaten and intimidate their victims into silence only makes the situation far worse.
The two problems are not mutually exclusive. The legal system has to be fair and allow accusers to come forward in private without media scrutiny. You are wrong that having fair libel laws would make the situation worse. It has made the situation better in countries that have them. It's hard to imagine a more dysfunctional scenario than what we see in the United States. It's very disturbing from the outside looking in.
What would be fair libel laws and how would you prove libel? You would have to prove libel in courts which would favor the party with the most money to get the best lawyers. I am concerned with strengthening libel laws when the largest voice for stronger libel laws is Donald Trump, a man accused of groping dozens of women, lost dozens of lawsuits for mistreatment of people working for him, endorses a man for Senate who was accused of attacking minors, defends a man in his White House that is accused of beating his wife, and who frequently uses derogatory insults towards women in the media and on twitter.
This really should have nothing to do with Donald Trump in particular. He's alleged to have done some pretty disturbing things and should be punished, but there are millions of other people that should be considered first.
Fair laws require parties to have some proof before making malicious and/or derogatory statements. That goes for both accusers and the accused. They favour the party that has truth on their side and it works quite well in other civilized countries.
Think about how you would feel if someone made a false allegation against you and you lost your job because of it. You have no protection, your life is ruined. I'm happy to live a place where I'm protected from that kind of attack and in the case of a real assault, people can come forward without media backlash and a smear campaign against them.
I was in elementary school when I quietly, privately reported what had happened to me at age 4 to the guidance counselor. She launched an investigation. This was the early 80's, though, it didn't take much to derail that kind of investigation in those days. Nothing ever came of it legally.
It damn sure happened, though.
Am I "sensitive" to things like sexual abuse? Yeah, I am. Experience has shown me time and again that people who are quick to scoff at accusations being taken seriously without a court conviction, or who discount to qualms of a survivor as being "compromised", as though we're incapable of still having rational thoughts along with our emotion turmoil, then the people making such specious arguments have absolutely no goddamn idea how fortunate they are to be that oblivious.
After I heard about George Takei last year, I vaulted both of the immortalized Sulus I had in my crew. I couldn't dismiss them entirely, because they were already immortalized. They're never coming out of that freezer.
Because whenever I see that face now, I don't see Hikaru Sulu, the noble and entirely fictitious hero. I see the face of someone who has been accused of hurting people the way I was hurt--and who has escaped answering for it, just as the person who hurt me has.
I'm in no mood to let people for whom these things are merely abstract ideas play gatekeeper of reason or "objectivity", and I'm not even going to look at anything else posted in this thread because, no, I can't handle it. I can't handle a community that I've come to expect to make me feel welcomed and comfortable taking such a deeply personal matter as this and turning it into a pseudo-philosophical exercise.
But I couldn't, for reasons I should hope by now are self-evident, allow this...discussion...to go without saying what I had to say.
And if anything in what I've said has resonated with you and you'd like to talk about it privately with me, you're welcome to message me. I know how hard it can be to carry something like that, and how freeing it can be to open up to someone about it.
Thanks for sharing your story. It must have been very difficult.
I'm a scientist and a cynic so I don't take my point of view on some of these matters to hurt the feelings of people like yourself. I look at the facts and make the most logical assumption.
When I see someone make a claim against George Takei without a shred of evidence, I really have no reason to believe that it is true or untrue. There are no facts in the case and one witness is not more credible than the other, at least to my knowledge. My moral compass tells me that is wrong to cast judgement on people who are not proven (or even likely) to have done anything wrong and most importantly, cannot effectively defend themselves. Perhaps if I had an experience like yours, my moral compass would point in a different direction, but I must be who I am. Don't criticize people too harshly for not sharing the same viewpoint as yourself. We're all trying to be good people in our own way.
I actually resonate with your view most even though I am someone in the same boat as Travis (read: victimized at a young age). I just can't get behind making myself overwrought with emotion when I don't have all the facts of a situation, and I try to hold others to that standard. To me, if an accusation is not backed by evidence, I can't in full-faith believe it without some doubts that it may also be untrue. I can have sympathy, empathy even, given my past experiences, but I cannot have a judgement.
The worst part about those kinds of instances (read: sexual assault) is they often aren't able to amass much evidence for. It's often a Person A said - Person B said ordeal and that's impossible to pass a fair judgement on. Even if multiple people come forward though, it is not automatically true which is also a difficulty. I still maintain that no matter what the circumstances, we have to hold legality with as much impartiality as we can muster. Sometimes we can bend that impartiality when the consequences are minor or seem more unjust than the actual conviction, but when it comes to dire consequences and dire convictions, it is imperative we don't.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Don't worry it will be like that in those places soon enough.
The law probably won't change. It's been in place for hundreds of years and been successful. The American founding fathers simply made a huge mistake, but it may get rectified soon.
It's awfully strange to see Trump doing something positive and progressive, but I hope that he is successful. It's equally strange to see the other (supposedly progressive) party opposing him. It just goes to show that they like to oppose each other for no apparent reason.
You realize what's driving that is the fact he's upset that investigative journalists keep reporting on all of his terrible behavior stretching back decades? Or simply that they are reporting anything less than flattering to him or his Administration, whatsoever? His interest in "reforming" libel laws in the United States is both an intimidation tactic as well as a representation of his genuine interest in obscuring the truth, and making the truth much more difficult to report without the threat of adverse legal action.
For what it's worth, these laws are unlikely to go anywhere. The statutes and case law surrounding libel and slander have gone through the wringer and been threatened multiple times throughout US history, in almost every generation, and they are still standing. The more Trump mewls about it, the weaker he looks (as President of the United States, his speech is essentially the most powerful and protected of all), and the more money and support will flow to civil liberties and free speech organizations. It's a total loser of an issue.
Positive reforms can come from less than honourable motives. That's been proven multiple times throughout history.
Free speech shouldn't include making damaging claims against someone without any proof. That's been a cornerstone of modern democracy since the Ancient Greeks and has remained so to this day, with the exception of a notable few.
There's nothing in British style libel law that would prevent journalists from reporting negative stories about Trump (god knows there are a lot of them), as long as they have done their due diligence in obtaining correct information.
What fuels so much of this 'fake news' and distrust of the media is the fact that there is no filter. Consumers have no way of knowing if the news that they see is true, like they do in Canada. There's political spin here, don't get me wrong, but they are all reporting on the same set of facts.
You can't say the accusers have no proof when their word and testimony is proof, especially when multiple accusers make similar accusations.
I'm sorry, but no. An accusation is not proof. It is a suspicion, an impetus to find proof, but it is not proof in and of itself. It is a very dangerous mindset to say otherwise.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
As an aside, I wonder what Scott Bakula has done to make DB refuse to put him in an event?
It wouldn’t be much of a leap to include him. It’s like they need some kind of naval investigation team to find him. I’m sure, after some necessary roughness, they will include him.
I was in elementary school when I quietly, privately reported what had happened to me at age 4 to the guidance counselor. She launched an investigation. This was the early 80's, though, it didn't take much to derail that kind of investigation in those days. Nothing ever came of it legally.
It damn sure happened, though.
Am I "sensitive" to things like sexual abuse? Yeah, I am. Experience has shown me time and again that people who are quick to scoff at accusations being taken seriously without a court conviction, or who discount to qualms of a survivor as being "compromised", as though we're incapable of still having rational thoughts along with our emotion turmoil, then the people making such specious arguments have absolutely no goddamn idea how fortunate they are to be that oblivious.
After I heard about George Takei last year, I vaulted both of the immortalized Sulus I had in my crew. I couldn't dismiss them entirely, because they were already immortalized. They're never coming out of that freezer.
Because whenever I see that face now, I don't see Hikaru Sulu, the noble and entirely fictitious hero. I see the face of someone who has been accused of hurting people the way I was hurt--and who has escaped answering for it, just as the person who hurt me has.
I'm in no mood to let people for whom these things are merely abstract ideas play gatekeeper of reason or "objectivity", and I'm not even going to look at anything else posted in this thread because, no, I can't handle it. I can't handle a community that I've come to expect to make me feel welcomed and comfortable taking such a deeply personal matter as this and turning it into a pseudo-philosophical exercise.
But I couldn't, for reasons I should hope by now are self-evident, allow this...discussion...to go without saying what I had to say.
And if anything in what I've said has resonated with you and you'd like to talk about it privately with me, you're welcome to message me. I know how hard it can be to carry something like that, and how freeing it can be to open up to someone about it.
Thanks for sharing your story. It must have been very difficult.
I'm a scientist and a cynic so I don't take my point of view on some of these matters to hurt the feelings of people like yourself. I look at the facts and make the most logical assumption.
When I see someone make a claim against George Takei without a shred of evidence, I really have no reason to believe that it is true or untrue. There are no facts in the case and one witness is not more credible than the other, at least to my knowledge. My moral compass tells me that is wrong to cast judgement on people who are not proven (or even likely) to have done anything wrong and most importantly, cannot effectively defend themselves. Perhaps if I had an experience like yours, my moral compass would point in a different direction, but I must be who I am. Don't criticize people too harshly for not sharing the same viewpoint as yourself. We're all trying to be good people in our own way.
I actually resonate with your view most even though I am someone in the same boat as Travis (read: victimized at a young age). I just can't get behind making myself overwrought with emotion when I don't have all the facts of a situation, and I try to hold others to that standard. To me, if an accusation is not backed by evidence, I can't in full-faith believe it without some doubts that it may also be untrue. I can have sympathy, empathy even, given my past experiences, but I cannot have a judgement.
The worst part about those kinds of instances (read: sexual assault) is they often aren't able to amass much evidence for. It's often a Person A said - Person B said ordeal and that's impossible to pass a fair judgement on. Even if multiple people come forward though, it is not automatically true which is also a difficulty. I still maintain that no matter what the circumstances, we have to hold legality with as much impartiality as we can muster. Sometimes we can bend that impartiality when the consequences are minor or seem more unjust than the actual conviction, but when it comes to dire consequences and dire convictions, it is imperative we don't.
I couldn't agree more. Well said.
Big time credit to everyone in this thread for having a civil discussion about a sensitive issue.
As an aside, I wonder what Scott Bakula has done to make DB refuse to put him in an event?
It wouldn’t be much of a leap to include him. It’s like they need some kind of naval investigation team to find him. I’m sure, after some necessary roughness, they will include him.
Closer to the rights for his likeness is too pricey for DB given his current level of success in his career.
Or he has to sign off on the artwork. That could be an issue.
Fair laws require parties to have some proof before making malicious and/or derogatory statements. That goes for both accusers and the accused. They favour the party that has truth on their side and it works quite well in other civilized countries.
By this definition the libel laws in the US are very fair: if you make statements about someone that results in them suffering financal loss, they can sue. If they can prove you said it and prove it caused them damage, they are almost certainly going to win unless you can prove what you said is true (or that you reasonably believed it was true).
I have seen several people from the UK discussing the difference between US and UK libel laws, and they all felt the primary difference is that in the US it isn't libel if it is clearly a statement of opinion.
So the question remains: what specific changes are you advocating for?
EDIT: I had initially misread the results, accidentally thinking the 4 votes in the 'yes' section were actually for the 'no' vote. My opinion remains the same, but obviously my surprise has dissipated.
I have to admit, I am a little surprised to see so few 'no' responses.
For example, I quite enjoyed the ST:VOY episode Message in a Bottle. The EMH Mark 2 character was a little zany and the interaction between he and The Doctor was entertaining. It was an interesting way to give Voyager a taste of the alpha quadrant, and also introduced a really innovative ship (hint - USS Prometheus would be a cool addition to the game).
I would gladly welcome the EMH Mark 2 into the game as a unique and memorable character from ST:VOY, without giving Andy Dick a second thought. I'm surprised I am in such a minority of posters who are able to separate a fictional character on a fictional tv show in a fictional video game, from the actor who portrayed said fictional character.
Had Andy Dick made an appearance as himself, as other people have on various Star Trek series, then that would be an entirely different matter.
I've actually been on a different side of the assault accusation equation.
I am a supposed, according to someone, victim, but I was actually never assaulted.
It was what I hope is a very unique situation. It was a domestic dispute involving my parents. One of which was later diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. My mother accused (and probably believed) that my father had molested me and my sister. If I had not been as old as I was (13) and with a strong personality -- things would have gone a lot different. My father worked a government job and came close to losing his clearance over this, which would have been career ending. Fortunately, someone actually bothered to talk with me and ask me directly what had or had not happened.
I think there is a needle that has to be threaded. On the one side you have folks like Weinstein who has actually **tsk tsk** people, and gotten away with it for a long time. There were a lot of people who had to enable it (hence the NY suit). Charlie Rose is another example of having his support network just saying, "Well that's Charlie". In my wife's family, there is a cousin who has never been brought to justice for attempting to assault several and succeeding with one other cousin. Protected by his parents. But then we have Emmitt Till. We have my family.
I'm honestly conflicted on this, in a major way. It's been on my mind a lot, especially as a parent of a toddler and thinking about what family members I will let into my daughters life, but also what Trek's I may introduce her to once she is older. And classic Trek is on my mind a lot playing this game. (Other than episodes that I watch during my immortalization ritual, I've started to really lose my appetite for Trek in general, mostly due to other non-related Trekdom events.)
Fair laws require parties to have some proof before making malicious and/or derogatory statements. That goes for both accusers and the accused. They favour the party that has truth on their side and it works quite well in other civilized countries.
By this definition the libel laws in the US are very fair: if you make statements about someone that results in them suffering financal loss, they can sue. If they can prove you said it and prove it caused them damage, they are almost certainly going to win unless you can prove what you said is true (or that you reasonably believed it was true).
I have seen several people from the UK discussing the difference between US and UK libel laws, and they all felt the primary difference is that in the US it isn't libel if it is clearly a statement of opinion.
So the question remains: what specific changes are you advocating for?
British libel law ain’t all it’s cracked up to be... ask Oscar Wilde... 😜
Fair laws require parties to have some proof before making malicious and/or derogatory statements. That goes for both accusers and the accused. They favour the party that has truth on their side and it works quite well in other civilized countries.
By this definition the libel laws in the US are very fair: if you make statements about someone that results in them suffering financal loss, they can sue. If they can prove you said it and prove it caused them damage, they are almost certainly going to win unless you can prove what you said is true (or that you reasonably believed it was true).
I have seen several people from the UK discussing the difference between US and UK libel laws, and they all felt the primary difference is that in the US it isn't libel if it is clearly a statement of opinion.
So the question remains: what specific changes are you advocating for?
British libel law ain’t all it’s cracked up to be... ask Oscar Wilde... 😜
To be fair, what Oscar Wilde was claiming to be libel was in fact true.
More at fault in that situation was the entirety of British society and other laws regarding sexuality.
“Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.” - Elim Garak
Cardassian wishlist: Tora Ziyal - Thanks!
Natima Lang
Empok Nor Garak
Tekeny Ghemor
Mira
Makbar
Dejar
Ulani Belor
Comments
Surely you delineate between a fictional character doing fictional things to other fictional characters and real people causing real harm to other real people.
This gets to the heart of it: DB likely does not want to deal with any bad publicity if a certain actor has bad press.
You realize what's driving that is the fact he's upset that investigative journalists keep reporting on all of his terrible behavior stretching back decades? Or simply that they are reporting anything less than flattering to him or his Administration, whatsoever? His interest in "reforming" libel laws in the United States is both an intimidation tactic as well as a representation of his genuine interest in obscuring the truth, and making the truth much more difficult to report without the threat of adverse legal action.
For what it's worth, these laws are unlikely to go anywhere. The statutes and case law surrounding libel and slander have gone through the wringer and been threatened multiple times throughout US history, in almost every generation, and they are still standing. The more Trump mewls about it, the weaker he looks (as President of the United States, his speech is essentially the most powerful and protected of all), and the more money and support will flow to civil liberties and free speech organizations. It's a total loser of an issue.
Squadron Leader - [TFA] Bateson’s Bulldogs
Squadron Leader - [TFA] Bateson’s Bulldogs
Though, I do think that any actor involved in such a situation should not get any royalties for any usage until such point that they are found not guilty of what they are accused of doing. If they are found guilty, then the funds should be used to go to the victims.
Actually in all interviews that I have read and since re-researched Melinda Culea only calls out the late George Peppard (who played Hannibal Smith) as the one who objected to woman on the show. He supposedly stated that he did not like having a female lead on the show. There were some other issues as well where she had some disputes with the producers who would not let her participate in fight scenes.
I actually asked Mr Shultz about this in person, as well, at a con and had a very interesting conversation with him on this and other topics. I hope someday to run across Culea with the current trend of nostalgia cons, it may just be a matter of time.
Positive reforms can come from less than honourable motives. That's been proven multiple times throughout history.
Free speech shouldn't include making damaging claims against someone without any proof. That's been a cornerstone of modern democracy since the Ancient Greeks and has remained so to this day, with the exception of a notable few.
There's nothing in British style libel law that would prevent journalists from reporting negative stories about Trump (god knows there are a lot of them), as long as they have done their due diligence in obtaining correct information.
What fuels so much of this 'fake news' and distrust of the media is the fact that there is no filter. Consumers have no way of knowing if the news that they see is true, like they do in Canada. There's political spin here, don't get me wrong, but they are all reporting on the same set of facts.
The part that I bolded is not an acceptable reason for fostering an environment where false accusations are not stopped and/or punished. Similar arguments are made about the death penalty and I don't buy them either. Sure the US executes many innocent people, but it's ok because they get some bad ones too. That's not the right way to look at it.
Really, the proof is in the pudding in these other countries. Victims of assault in Canada and the UK are far more likely to state their case in the court of law because they are given a fair shake and not exposed to a media circus and/or smear campaigns. There are also far fewer false allegations made. There are a lot of improvements to be made, but it's an unquestionably better result for everyone.
Really, this has to be solved at a grassroots level and that's not being done in the U.S. These disgusting media crusades have only made things worse and created an extremely adversarial environment that has and will only result in negative changes.
If sufficient libel laws had been in place to protect victims of Harvey Weinstein, it is likely that they would have come forward long ago. It goes both ways. It's a disgusting and backwards system that needs to be addressed. Your founding fathers would be ashamed to see their beliefs twisted like this.
Sorry, but this entire post smacks of this:
I don’t doubt for a second that there are a ton of unreported sex crimes - particularly among the rich and powerful in the entertainment industry - but we cannot accept an accusation = proof by default. See also: Brian Banks.
If you believe an accusation without evidence or investigation you are stuck in the ages where we burned women at the stake for being accused of witchcraft
While I agree with the assertion, Salem witch hunts were not exclusively women nor were they burned at the stake (although it makes for better TV). I think most were hanged.
Yeah I think most of the witch burnings were in Europe... Germany and I think the Dutch did one.
I can certainly understand a company wanting to distance itself from making payments to people that a large portion of their customers may want to boycott.
The main reason Weinstein's accusers stayed quiet so long was that he had not just the power to ruin them, but also the power to make them.
Imagine I have the power to get you your dream job. And now imagine you have landed in a position to do me a favor: you'll keep quiet about an illegal thing I did. How heinous does the thing have to be before you decide you'd rather become a farmer.
Because that's the choice they faced: go along and have him helping their career, or come forward and have him do everything in his considerable power to see they never work in movies again.
The two problems are not mutually exclusive. The legal system has to be fair and allow accusers to come forward in private without media scrutiny. You are wrong that having fair libel laws would make the situation worse. It has made the situation better in countries that have them. It's hard to imagine a more dysfunctional scenario than what we see in the United States. It's very disturbing from the outside looking in.
This really should have nothing to do with Donald Trump in particular. He's alleged to have done some pretty disturbing things and should be punished, but there are millions of other people that should be considered first.
Fair laws require parties to have some proof before making malicious and/or derogatory statements. That goes for both accusers and the accused. They favour the party that has truth on their side and it works quite well in other civilized countries.
Think about how you would feel if someone made a false allegation against you and you lost your job because of it. You have no protection, your life is ruined. I'm happy to live a place where I'm protected from that kind of attack and in the case of a real assault, people can come forward without media backlash and a smear campaign against them.
I actually resonate with your view most even though I am someone in the same boat as Travis (read: victimized at a young age). I just can't get behind making myself overwrought with emotion when I don't have all the facts of a situation, and I try to hold others to that standard. To me, if an accusation is not backed by evidence, I can't in full-faith believe it without some doubts that it may also be untrue. I can have sympathy, empathy even, given my past experiences, but I cannot have a judgement.
The worst part about those kinds of instances (read: sexual assault) is they often aren't able to amass much evidence for. It's often a Person A said - Person B said ordeal and that's impossible to pass a fair judgement on. Even if multiple people come forward though, it is not automatically true which is also a difficulty. I still maintain that no matter what the circumstances, we have to hold legality with as much impartiality as we can muster. Sometimes we can bend that impartiality when the consequences are minor or seem more unjust than the actual conviction, but when it comes to dire consequences and dire convictions, it is imperative we don't.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
I'm sorry, but no. An accusation is not proof. It is a suspicion, an impetus to find proof, but it is not proof in and of itself. It is a very dangerous mindset to say otherwise.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
It wouldn’t be much of a leap to include him. It’s like they need some kind of naval investigation team to find him. I’m sure, after some necessary roughness, they will include him.
I couldn't agree more. Well said.
Big time credit to everyone in this thread for having a civil discussion about a sensitive issue.
Closer to the rights for his likeness is too pricey for DB given his current level of success in his career.
Or he has to sign off on the artwork. That could be an issue.
I have seen several people from the UK discussing the difference between US and UK libel laws, and they all felt the primary difference is that in the US it isn't libel if it is clearly a statement of opinion.
So the question remains: what specific changes are you advocating for?
I have to admit, I am a little surprised to see so few 'no' responses.
For example, I quite enjoyed the ST:VOY episode Message in a Bottle. The EMH Mark 2 character was a little zany and the interaction between he and The Doctor was entertaining. It was an interesting way to give Voyager a taste of the alpha quadrant, and also introduced a really innovative ship (hint - USS Prometheus would be a cool addition to the game).
I would gladly welcome the EMH Mark 2 into the game as a unique and memorable character from ST:VOY, without giving Andy Dick a second thought. I'm surprised I am in such a minority of posters who are able to separate a fictional character on a fictional tv show in a fictional video game, from the actor who portrayed said fictional character.
Had Andy Dick made an appearance as himself, as other people have on various Star Trek series, then that would be an entirely different matter.
I am a supposed, according to someone, victim, but I was actually never assaulted.
It was what I hope is a very unique situation. It was a domestic dispute involving my parents. One of which was later diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. My mother accused (and probably believed) that my father had molested me and my sister. If I had not been as old as I was (13) and with a strong personality -- things would have gone a lot different. My father worked a government job and came close to losing his clearance over this, which would have been career ending. Fortunately, someone actually bothered to talk with me and ask me directly what had or had not happened.
I think there is a needle that has to be threaded. On the one side you have folks like Weinstein who has actually **tsk tsk** people, and gotten away with it for a long time. There were a lot of people who had to enable it (hence the NY suit). Charlie Rose is another example of having his support network just saying, "Well that's Charlie". In my wife's family, there is a cousin who has never been brought to justice for attempting to assault several and succeeding with one other cousin. Protected by his parents. But then we have Emmitt Till. We have my family.
I'm honestly conflicted on this, in a major way. It's been on my mind a lot, especially as a parent of a toddler and thinking about what family members I will let into my daughters life, but also what Trek's I may introduce her to once she is older. And classic Trek is on my mind a lot playing this game. (Other than episodes that I watch during my immortalization ritual, I've started to really lose my appetite for Trek in general, mostly due to other non-related Trekdom events.)
British libel law ain’t all it’s cracked up to be... ask Oscar Wilde... 😜
You consider 61% to be few?
To be fair, what Oscar Wilde was claiming to be libel was in fact true.
More at fault in that situation was the entirety of British society and other laws regarding sexuality.
Cardassian wishlist:
Tora Ziyal - Thanks!
Natima Lang
Empok Nor Garak
Tekeny Ghemor
Mira
Makbar
Dejar
Ulani Belor