Almost 100 years ago, silent movie star Roscoe (Fatty) Arbuckle was accused of a hideous crime. I don't want to put down what he was accused of as it could be considered a "Shock the conscience" type of thing. The fact is he had three trials. Two were Hung Jurys and the third found him NOT guilty. Here is the statement read by the jury foreman...

"Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle. We feel that a great injustice has been done him. We feel also that it was only our plain duty to give him this exoneration, under the evidence, for there was not the slightest proof adduced to connect him in any way with the commission of a crime. He was manly throughout the case and told a straightforward story on the witness stand, which we all believed. The happening at the hotel was an unfortunate affair for which Arbuckle, so the evidence shows, was in no way responsible. We wish him success and hope that the American people will take the judgment of fourteen men and woman who have sat listening for thirty-one days to evidence, that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free from all blame."

The problem was that from the time of Roscoe's arrest, he became persona non-gratis in Hollywood. Basically the accusation destroyed his movie career and his livelihood. The Jury had recognized this and tried to apologize in the hopes of making things right. There was no mending what had become fixed in the minds of the public.

Today we have Kevin Spacey convicted by the media. At least two projects he starred in have dropped him.

The Constitution of the united stated 14th amendment states that... No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

I do believe that anyone who is guilty of a crime deserved to be punished for it. My problem is that the media now makes people guilty out of the need for "sensationalism" and not out of true guilt. Let Mr. Spacey have a fair trail before a jury of his peers. If he is guilty, punish him. If he is not guilty, let it be done, and let the fine actor get back to work.

It's important to remember that "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is by the government. No person shall be deprived by the government.

Companies have every right to refuse to associate with someone who has a reputation that they feel does not suit their brand, or that they feel would be actively detrimental to their brand.

It's tricky, though, Chris. I wouldn't want to be in a situation where the only employers in an area, for example, only hire those whose political and social beliefs are the same as theirs. Should Company X be allowed to refuse to hire anyone who is a Republican, or Company Y be allowed to refuse to hire anyone whose sexual orientation is heterosexual?

Much as I think the allegations, if true, against Weinstein and Spacey depict awful and possibly criminal conduct, it's a slippery road to enter against someone who, as Cliff has pointed out, has not had his day in court.

It always turns against us, as we saw during the McCarthy period when people's livelihoods were destroyed because of their political beliefs.

I hear what you are saying Chris. I do wonder though, if someone is entitled to compensation if a company fires them, or disenfranchises them from work, and later finds out their decision was based on bad, wrong or incomplete information.

I think there is a legal recourse for that scenario, probably somewhere under libel laws, but I'm not a lawyer.

However, can we at least agree that there's a pretty distinct difference between, "We halted the projects because he's a republican" and "we halted the projects because 15 people have made credible allegations of sexual misconduct and something of a history that makes them seem even more likely to be true"?

Celebrity's are in a unique position in that what they are selling to us the Brand of Them. Currently, Spacey's brand is on fire, and it's not unreasonable for companies, who are also largely based around perceived brand value, not wanting to get collateral damage.

At the risk of seeming unreasonable, I think the answer to that is no. I know, it's very tempting to make the case that they're far different, and if it were about who should marry my child, I'd agree.

But the legal presumption of innocence is an important one, and if that phrase is to mean anything, then it should also protect a person's livelihood. Otherwise that presumption is just so much lip service.

How many political figures suffer through the media bias on both sides? Stuff that is made up for heaven sake. Often the mere accusation is enough to kill careers.

The media has become far too powerful a tool and are all but unaccountable to anyone. The Internet has given idiots with agendas in their mom's basement wearing their underwear weapons of mass misinformation. Somehow we have people who still think a former president was not born in this country, and on and on. Sorry that wad unintentionally political.

What court has declared him guilty?

Again - his legal rights have not been violated as far as I see so far. Companies refusing to work with him because of his reputation are justified to do so.

Just like if someone shows up for an interview with a tattoo on their neck - the company can say, "I don't think you're a good fit here" and that is their call.

"Oh, you have an unresolved history of people accusing you of sexual misconduct. I don't think you're a good fit here."

There is merit to all people are saying here....

But what about the right to face your attacker? The right to be judged by a jury of your peers.

A man makes an accusation for an event that is what 20 years ago or more? New York does not have a statute of limitations for sexual assault. Spacey could be taken to court. That would be fair. He could make his case, the other guy could too.

I do hear what Chris is saying, but I think it is not right to take action against someone for an unproven accusation.

I wish our media could be more responsible and report rather than make news.

Is there a similar thread yet for Judge Roy Moore? (Or Paul Manafort, or Rick Gates?)

I'll say I generally agree with what Chris has said. AFAIK, no one has violated any of Spacey's rights. If they have, he can sue for damages (as so many have done in the past, when they have been falsely accused of something). E.g., when a man was falsely accused of being the 1996 Olympic bomber.

You have a right to face your accuser, not attacker and in a court of law. If you are not accused in a court of law it doesn't apply.

I think the whole world has become a mud-slinging match. There are no facts in politics or in the news anymore: just people throwing childish insults and allegations around, which is passed off to us as information.

Apparently so.

http://www.breitbart.com/tinseltown/2/

Yes, and of course you agree that the Hollywood blacklist attacks in the 1950s that threw hundreds of working actors out of work because of their leftist views; and the attacks against leftists in labor unions; and the attacks against university professors during the McCarthy era because of their leftist views; was also wrong, and in fact the blueprint for subsequent attacks, such as the dismissal of University professors nowadays for their pro-Palestinean positions.

Doesn't Spacey's response (apologizing, entering rehab) suggest that he's guilty? Perhaps the media are convicting him because he's, in effect, admitted guilt.

That, in and of itself, distinguishes his situation from Arbuckle's.

That's a good point, Bill. I did miss that aspect of it. That is a significant difference.

Twitter justice indeed bothers me, even when just.

I hate double posting, but thought that maybe a discussion I had yesterday might give a bit of nuance to the discussion.

We were in a class, and some young man was talking about acting, and someone brought Kevin Spacey's name up, and another young man referred to Kevin Spacey having "raped" a 14-year-old boy.

While Bill is not wrong in pointing out that an apology might imply guilt, it remains also true that public opinion--fickle, imprecise, ideological, and fluid--ought not be our source of judgment regarding guilt or innocence.

Fatty Arbuckle is relevant because--even after a jury not only found him not guilty, but issued a written statement apologizing that he had even been put on trial--his career was destroyed, and his reputation remains permanently marred by the case.

Kevin Spacey has been similarly destroyed, but without institutionally-sanctioned professionals having done any investigation whatsoever. Scotland Yard is investigating one case, but that is it, and we have no idea regarding the outcome. Otherwise no prosecutors, no investigative journalists employed by reputable media, no judges, no juries, no convictions, are being weighed in our evaluation of his deeds or misdeeds or non-deeds.

Apologies or confessions do not remove our civic responsibility to consider a justice that is measured, qualified, impeachable or confirmable, and thoroughly investigatable by non-hysterical, non-involved, no-skin-in-the-game professionals.

Should a lynch mob hang a guilty person, it remains a lynch mob.

Kevin Spacey was not accused of "rape", and yet that's what my student "knows."

This, I think, is a problem.

All of the accusers could have done what some Bill O'Reilly's accusers did - say nothing in public and get paid in private.

Instead they made a public accusation, which is not easy, especially the men given the stigma. I think it's important to note that for almost all of cases, more people came out and made similar accusations.

As Stone pointed out there is one possible investigation into Spacey, and as far as I can tell only one of the Weinstein cases may be lead to a rape charge.

So what are the alleged victims to do? Continue to stay silent?
Are they responsible for the reaction of the public?
Should these people be able to continue to receive adoration and success, while their victims still suffer - and have to relive the incident(s) every time they see or hear about these people.

The accused have legal recourse if the accusation proves false. Though I think some are over-reacting - "Forty seven years ago he looked at me in a way that made me uncomfortable", by and large I think it's about time that these cultures were exposed - both so that these people are held accountable, and to see who rises up to defend them.

Look at Roy Moore, a despicable excuse for a human. He's unapologetic because he knows his base, and is pretty sure they will think the way he does - and, unbelievably, will STILL vote for him.

I was saddened by the racism and xenophobia that was exposed during the last election cycle, but I came to see it as a good thing. As long as things like that remain hidden they fester.

In that one case, the incident has been described (when and where I've seen it discussed) as an 'attempted rape'.

But there have been numerous claims of assault and unwanted sexual contact made, and at least one of those does involve an unwanted uninvited sexual act performed on the victim by Spacey. According to the details of that claim, Spacey did commit what could be described accurately an act of rape, though I'm not sure whether the victim used that word or just described the incident.

Different victim, though, not the 14-year old.