None of which applies to this case. Ms Farrow has been doomed by her mother’s overwhelming and manipulative interference in her testimony which cannot be undone. Whatever was the truth, it is gone.
Ms Farrow’s additional problem trying to insist on some extrajudicial punishment cast on Woody Allen is him lacking any other case where similar charges would have been brought against him, in spite of the tremendous and vicious publicity that the case has brought over the years. And even in her case, the accusation was built around a single event that her own brother says didn’t happen.
Ms Farrow’s mother prioritized her own poisonous, vengeful separation from Woody Allen over her daughter getting justice, whichever way the truth went, and that cannot be seen positively from any angle.
Where are your courts of law when you declare Mia and Dylan Farrow guilty of witness tampering and libel? Have you read the article that I linked? If not, please read it.
No, the point is that while so many others are right now facing consequences for past sins, Woody Allen isn’t. No one is saying, I refuse to work with Woody Allen, because what he did* was reprehensible. He’s still getting away with it.
#BelieveWomen or, if you don’t believe Dylan Farrow about things that happened in private, decide that getting caught with your face in your daughters naked lap and making her suck your thumb is bad enough.
I didn’t say anything about Dylan Farrow. I have read enough about this over the years from both sides of the divide to understand the truth is probably gone forever, unless someone involved makes a confession this or that way or some third party surfaces with similar accusations.
I am not asking Mia Farrow to be isolated and prevented from practicing her profession, which seems to be what Ms Farrow is asking for Woody Allen as some sort of mob justice to get the witch stoned on the square. I am just saying I cannot see a scenario where Mia Farrow’s actions could be seen positively regarding how her daughter got caught in limbo which is the worst possible outcome that could have befallen her.
You are implying that Dylan is not telling the truth.
We were not asking for Mr. Allen to be lynched, we are wondering why people that choose not to be associated with people like Mr. Weinstein choose to associate with Mr. Allen.
It might be a little facile, but I sort of feel like a corollary to Scalzi’s Law (the failure mode of clever is asshole) could be stated as an asshole is a comedian who ignores context.
The idea that a “beyond reasonable doubt” formulation of the burden of proof/presumption of innocence could reasonably apply outside of legal contexts is good for a couple of upvotes.
Why it doesn’t match reality for a second, for anyone who has ever experienced casual employment or social opprobrium, is a challenge for the observer.
But we weigh the risk of issues (eg lynchings driven by rumour) against the difficulty of successful prosecution.
Here in the UK, criminal prosecution can only succeed if the jury agree guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, but civil prosecution just needs a balance of probabilities.
I predict in all sorts of ways that natural human responses to adversity will lead to active disaster (like, peasants rising against the rich), but I know that fundamentally, to not exist in a daily dangerous jungle, we must manage ourselves to keep out of Lord of the Flies.
It depends. Is somebody else going to lead the lynch mob personally from door to door, or am I? If it’s not me, I’m not willing to go along with vigilantism based on tabloid hearsay, I’ll wait for the court system. But if it’s me, then saddle up, gang! Grab some pitchforks and torches from the pile there!
I’m not clear how “choosing not to associate with someone who has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct” is a form of vigilantism. The lynch mobs of old didn’t earn their brutal reputation just by refusing to collaborate on film projects.
It depends on who we think the accuser is. During the custody hearings some people thought Dylan was coached, and the starts and stops in Mia Farrow’s videotape seemed to back that up. I’ve heard custody lawyers say it’s common for one side in a battle to offer invented tales of abuse if it will help their side. I’m not unequivocally saying that’s what happened, but it’s a real possibility. We can accept as fact that now as an adult Dylan has memories of abuse, but we can also recognize the documented fact that false memories can be implanted.
I am not making blanket dismissals of all cases of abuse, and I almost always believe the victim in these matters, but automatically accepting one side without question sets a dangerous precedent. I am trying to reasonably weight all the different accounts and it’s not satisfying at all. Everyone has to make their own decision about it, I choose not to make any conclusions here. To pick one side means dismissing a lot of evidence on the other side.
There was a movie I saw years ago where Mike Farrell plays an average father and husband, but one day finds he is the prime suspect in a child’s disappearance. Suddenly everything in his life is seen through the lens of him being a predator, including the most mundane or common acts. Fear and anger seems to overpower caution and reason in cases like this.
I am trying not to pick any side in this case. For some people that is not good enough.
