Victim blaming

[Kheldarson]

So listening to the radio and the DJ brings up this bit of news:

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35924930

In which Sir Elton John is being accused of sexually harassing a former bodyguard.

The case has just started, only allegations have been made.

The DJ made a point of reiterating several times that as we all know, this sort of thing is often just a strike to get money. You know, get them when they're down.

And I'm just thinking, really? You think that if he, the victim, wasn't serious, you think he'd want to be in a position where the media gets to call him a liar? We don't know the case. It's barely started. Let's not start with the shaming of the alleged victim in public court: it only makes it worse for folks in the future.

[s_stabeler]

To be fair, I don't think this is victim blaming as much as a rather incompetent way of emphasising that the allegations are not yet proven- there has been a big deal recently about celebrities getting accused of abusing people, a big deal made out of it, and then, when the allegations turn out to be either false, or unproven, that fact is not made clear to the public- meaning the original allegations forever stain the reputation of someone innocent.

edit- and I will say that the allegations do look suspicious to me, in that apparently, the alleged victim is also suing the company he worked for that assigned him to be Elton John's security guard for stopping him working with the star. Both court cases can't be valid simultaneously. ( if he was abused by Elton John, the company was right to remove him from guarding the singer. If he was not, then he shouldn't be suing elton john.

[HYHYBT]

"Do not assume accusations are true just because they've been made" is not victim blaming.

[Kheldarson]

"Do not assume accusations are true just because they've been made" is not victim blaming.

I agree, but that's not how it was phrased. It was honestly presenting it as a "can you believe this? He must just be going for money" thing. That's what made me upset.

[s_stabeler]

still not victim blaming- and, frankly, in the circumstances, possibly fair, if harsh, comment. Victim Blaming is when the victim of a crime is blamed for the crime- criticising the victim for actions subsequent to the crime- including criticising the victim for reporting the crime- is a separate, albeit often related, issue.

Should the DJ have phrased it the way he did? probably not. However, the point- that the allegations are not yet proven- was a valid one, and the DJ was right to point it out, considering that a false allegation can be particularly devastating to a celebrity- especially a singer. ( a celebrity ultimately makes most of their money from their reputation- sponsorships, endorsement deals and the like- and a singer is reliant on people buying/streaming their songs.A loss of reputation due to a false allegation can result in both the withdrawal of sponsorship/endorsement deals and a reduction on people playing that signer's songs (or attending that singer's tours) which can cause a collapse in income for said singer.)

[Gravekeeper]

Suing both Elton John and the company that removed him from working with Elton John is certainly a little suspicious.

So listening to the radio and the DJ brings up this bit
And I'm just thinking, really? You think that if he, the victim, wasn't serious, you think he'd want to be in a position where the media gets to call him a liar?

To be bluntly honest? Yes. What's some media smearing in the face of possibly getting millions of dollars? No one would even remember the guy's name a year after the case resolved. It's an ugly truth in general with celebrities and especially if the alleged victim is white and male. The US media, sad as it is, isn't going to drag a white guy through the mud over something like this. They'll cover it for a bit for the ratings then move on to something juicier.

I mean, do you remember the name of the guy that sued Bryan Singer? How about the name of the guy that sued John Travolta? Did you even know someone *was* suing John Travolta for sexual assault? This guy doesn't have much to fear from the media.

[TheHuckster]

I mean, do you remember the name of the guy that sued Bryan Singer? How about the name of the guy that sued John Travolta? Did you even know someone *was* suing John Travolta for sexual assault? This guy doesn't have much to fear from the media.

While it's true that these folks aren't household names, surely it would still have a big impact on their future in any career they have. I mean, if I were a hiring manager at Delta Airlines and Douglas Gotterba were applying for a job, all it'd take is a quick Google search for me to immediately toss his resume into the trash.

The people who try these kinds of stunts are foolish. There's a slim chance they get some modest book deal at best, and a far greater chance that they simply get 15 minutes of fame followed by baggage that hangs with them for the rest of their lives.

[s_stabeler]

It depends mostly on how reasonable you seem, to be honest- to use an example, if a company refuses to pay you your full paycheck, and you try everything short of suing to collect it, then sue for the unpaid amount with reasonable interest (and the company paying any fees you incurred as a direct result of the underpayment) then you would probably not be affected a great amount. If, on the converse, you stub your toe at work, and sue your employer for millions of pounds, you're going to get a bad reputation. ( I deliberately used an extreme example, by the way- I highly doubt someone would actually sue over a stubbed toe)

It does, admittedly, also depend on how vindictive the person sued is, as well as how well-connected they are.( in short, suing someone well-connected, like Elton John, and you should probably make absolutely sure it would be clear to a two-year-old that you are obviously in the right- it's less that said celebrity is likely to engage in mud-slinging as much as their fans probably will- even the most saintly of celebrities will have fans who are rather less so. It's the old "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. your Christians are most unlike your Christ" situation. (incidentally- and i don't want this getting into a religious debate- I suspect some religious figures got a nasty shock post-mortem when they found out their final destination.)

[TheHuckster]

It depends mostly on how reasonable you seem, to be honest- to use an example, if a company refuses to pay you your full paycheck, and you try everything short of suing to collect it, then sue for the unpaid amount with reasonable interest (and the company paying any fees you incurred as a direct result of the underpayment) then you would probably not be affected a great amount

I am talking specifically about the people who "try these kinds of stunts." Suing to get your due payment is not a "stunt." Not to mention it probably would not get your name on TMZ.

The people I'm talking about, like John Travolta's accuser, know full well their stunt will be plastered on every tabloid and will remain on the Internet forever. So, if their accusations are found to be baseless and subsequently dismissed, their career aspirations are thrown out the window.

( I deliberately used an extreme example, by the way- I highly doubt someone would actually sue over a stubbed toe)

Don't be so sure.

[HYHYBT]

I mean, do you remember the name of the guy that sued Bryan Singer? How about the name of the guy that sued John Travolta?

Perhaps this overproves your point: I'd forgotten that Travolta had been sued and don't even remember what it was for, and I don't know who Bryan Singer is.

[Shangri-laschild]

It doesn't mean this guy's accusations are correct but I can think of reasons why he would be suing the company and Elton John. Let's say you're being sexually harassed by your boss. You go to HR to report it and they as a result move you to a much lower paying job to "fix" the problem. Or they fire you. Well yes, the result is you don't work with the boss who is sexually harassing you and going after the company for that would essentially be going after them for removing you from a job where you were being sexually harassed. But if it's not ok in an office setting to demote or fire the victim to "fix" the problem, then it's not ok in this type of situation.

To be clear, I get that this may not at all be what happened and sure this guy could be lying. We don't know yet. I'm just trying to point out that him suing both parties doesn't automatically make it fishy.

I think society has this weird need to immediately know the whole complete story when it comes to things. Something comes out in the news and for the next couple of days, people try to guess or research or decide what actually happened rather than acknowledging that there are accusations and that we don't know yet because all of the evidence hasn't been presented. I can understand wanting to look into the facts already being presented and even discussing them (or else I wouldn't even be here) but with society's short attention span, things seem to get combed through and immediately decided as if what gets presented in court or how the trial goes is mostly irrelevant.

[Gravekeeper]

While it's true that these folks aren't household names, surely it would still have a big impact on their future in any career they have. I mean, if I were a hiring manager at Delta Airlines and Douglas Gotterba were applying for a job, all it'd take is a quick Google search for me to immediately toss his resume into the trash.

Suing celebrities is practically in the vogue at the moment. Bullshit is a major industry in the US. You can turn that 15 minutes of fame into a decent windfall and no one will know or care a year or two on. Douglas Gotterba will likely never have to work a day again in his life considering all signs point to Travolta writing him a cheque to drop the lawsuit.

I mean if Amanda Knox can still find a job despite all the shit that happened around her; I don't think suing a celebrity would do much to hurt your job prospects. Provided your talk show appearances and book deal fall through.

Thus guy should be more worried about his future job prospects in suing his employer, not Elton John. Suing your employer is the real Google search risk. -.-

[Greenday]

Suing celebrities is practically in the vogue at the moment. Bullshit is a major industry in the US. You can turn that 15 minutes of fame into a decent windfall and no one will know or care a year or two on. Douglas Gotterba will likely never have to work a day again in his life considering all signs point to Travolta writing him a cheque to drop the lawsuit.

I mean if Amanda Knox can still find a job despite all the shit that happened around her; I don't think suing a celebrity would do much to hurt your job prospects. Provided your talk show appearances and book deal fall through.

Thus guy should be more worried about his future job prospects in suing his employer, not Elton John. Suing your employer is the real Google search risk. -.-

You don't think it's possible that celebs know they can get away with anything so they do whatever the hell they want?

[Gravekeeper]

You don't think it's possible that celebs know they can get away with anything so they do whatever the hell they want?

I never said that, in fact, I gave an example that pretty much proves that. My point is that no one will remember or care a year or two on. Regardless of the outcome. So the threat of media slander isn't much of a deterrent to suing a celebrity. People sue celebrities all the time. Sometimes for downright insane shit and most the time its barely a blip in the public consciousness.