orangeskittles said: "Kad said: "...am I the only one whodoesn'tfind it odd that a teenager- particularly one who has been working professionally in the business for several years at that point-would be unaccompanied at a gathering of other professionals? Especially thirty years ago?"
No, you're not. 1986 parenting is not 2017 parenting, and a professional teenage child actor is not the same as Suzy Sophomore Smalltown, who has to come straight home after soccer practice and call her mom at work from the landline. The kids in Annie went to Studio 54, for god's sake. Drew Barrymore was already snorting coke in 1986. Kids today are claiming Stranger Things is unrealistic because the parents have no idea where their kids were all day. Times have changed. Nothing about this party scenario was outlandish for mid-80s, except that the participants are famous.
Soaring29 said: "Personally, I believe Rapp's story here, but I'd caution those who say we should automatically believe the victim- nobody knows if the person is a victim or not until being able to weigh all the facts. That's why we have juries/judges. Although I understand it is necessary in order to avoid kangaroo courts, I don't necessarily believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, nor do I believe in "guilty until proven innocent" - it should be a matter of fact for a person to be able make up their own mind after hearing the evidence,to not have any pre-conceived notion at all,and not let their emotions and biases overwhelm them. Assuming anything is contrary to the interests of justice. There are indeed false reports of sex crimes out there and falsely accused people whose lives are drastically affected by them- no one should assume anything until they are able to weigh both sides. Do not automatically assume anything until you know all the facts. And this goes for automatically believing the accused as well. As hard as it is, one has to put aside their personal feelings and be objective."
Soaring29, just because you personally weren't aware doesn't mean everyone elseare automatically assuming without the facts.
You think Netflix would have suspended production on a show if they thought it was only one person's 30 year old claims? They know it's not. Steve C. knows it's not. The Old Vic knows it's not. A few weeks ago, a journalist in Boston said on Twitter that Kevin Spacey assaulted a loved one of hers and it flew under the radar.
One person making an accusation with no proof is one thing. One person making an accusation and dozens of people saying "I know someone too!" is another."
Can you clarify what you mean when you say "Soaring29, just because you personally weren't aware doesn't mean everyone elseare automatically assuming without the facts"?
Yes, I can believe that Netflix would do that- This Weinstein scandal has truly rocked Hollywood to it's core, people are starting to realize how prevalent of a problem this and are raging at Hollywood for not wanting this stuff to come out and looking the other way. They don't want anything to do with it, so they're washing their hands of the whole thing. Nobody in Hollywood wants to be seen as complicit with anything Weinstein or Spacey or anyone else in Hollywood is accused of. So they will take drastic, prompt action to distance themselves from Spacey as soon as possible.
