Scott Rudin takedown — Page 16

HeyMrMusic said: "Yeah, that’s an awful analogy. Both stories are about how toxic men hold power. Those who abuse their power by abusing or harassing or buddying up with people who do should have their power and privilege taken away from them. But okay, go on defending the privacy of terrible people.

I’m shocked Roth admitted to this at all, but I bet Disney was put under pressure to act swiftly."


Not all surprised Disney acted swiftly to rid themselves of Roth. They don’t like negative press.
I am a little surprised that no one is talking about Tom Schumacher. There was a huge NY times story that was going to come out years ago (pre-Frozen) about him that painted him in a less than flattering light.

ctorres23 said: "I think you're reading too much into it. It boils down to this: I contribute less in cases where I agree with the majority, and more when I don't. On Ramasar and Rudin, I am out of step with most people on this board, so when I post my opinion, it contributes more to the discussion than if I only posted in threads where I agree with everyone. Does that make sense?"

What it does is confirm what I said.

As a side note, one thing I’ve noticed about this board is that about 50% of the responses to my posts are about me, in some way, rather than the substance of what I say. And it creates a weird meta-discussion that can’t possibly be interesting to most people.

I've noticed that when a lot of the responses are about the poster, it often means they didn't say anything of substance.

If you have thoughts you should share them.

"Give a person a fish, and you'll feed them for a day. Teach a person to fish, and you've fed them for a lifetime." -- Confucius [with a bit of pronoun sanitizing]

ctorres23 said: "HeyMrMusic said: "But okay, go on defending the privacy of terrible people."

I will, thank you, yes. All people, the terrible included, deserve to not have their privacy invaded."

Tell a criminal investigator that.

ctorres23 said: "That doesn't really change that spying on someone's phone in public and publishing the contents is not cool. Roth's isn't a criminal, if anything his crimewas basically a thoughtcrime. He privately supported the Bad Man."

He was in a public space (technically speaking). He wasn't spied upon. As I previously said, the person who "leaked" the info could simply had just glanced in that direction and saw what he was writing with no intent to be nosy. If I am having a private conversation in a public space, it isn't private. If he wanted privacy he could have sent that email when no one could see him.

HogansHero said: "There was no invasion of privacy here."

Are you serious? You think looking at someone's phone, while they text someone privately, and then publishing what you see to the world, is not an invasion of privacy? You think by virtue of the fact that they didn't do it in their own home, with their blinds drawn, somehow makes it totally fair game?

That is crazy to me. People text private stuff in public all the time. I've texted with my therapist, I've texted with my significant other, I've texted with best friends. You truly think it would be fine - not an invasion of privacy - for someone to look over my shoulder, transcribe what I write, and then publish that on social media WITH MY NAME so everyone can read it?

I just cannot relate to that point of view. I mean, if you believe it, that's fine, but I can't relate.

Updated On: 4/20/21 at 09:26 AM

HogansHero said: "...sucking up to Rudin as he did is probably a crime in the Disney penal code. Or a sin in the Disney bible."

Exactly. They're not interested in putting their PR team to work defending a very replaceable director.

And have we learned nothing from the last 20 years and digital communication? The second you send it, you're opening yourself up for it to be found out. Don't want it known, don't send it. Want it private, make a phone call from your house.

For what it's worth: I think this information was obtained and distributed in an unethical manner, especially because Roth was exposed to be merely an a**hole - at worst, an enabler. He was not putting anyone directly in danger with his words. Using the logic of "be careful what you type" is a slippery slope that can lead to all kinds of victim blaming in all kinds of unethical situation. I'm not saying that leaking an unflattering email is morally equivalent to leaking a nude photo - the latter is far more repugnant. But the logic being used in this thread to defend the leak can be equally applied to both scenarios. EDIT: I'd like to clarify this by saying that there's a distinction between obtaining the information vs. copying and distributing it. Someone might have compromising content displayed on their device for all to see, and it may or may not have been easy to avoid seeing it. I know I have inadvertently seen private things simply because it's out in the open, and catches my eye. Before I was even consciously aware of what I was glancing at, I've already seen it. But copying the email down word-of-word and distributing it is what strikes me as unethical.

HAVING SAID THAT - I think this whole thing is moot, because the information is out there. It happened. And Disney responded accordingly. And I'm not sad to see him go. And perhaps more to the point, he made the choice to confess when he could have easily weathered it out by staying silent. And at this point, devoting all of your energy to attacking the unethical methods feels like missing the forest for the trees. And ctorres23, I think that's what's making people question your motives.

And having said THAT: I've disagreed with, and been frustrated with, a lot of what ctorres23 has said in these past few days. But to me, they don't read like a troll, and I do think that several posters on this board have resorted to low bullying tactics to invalidate what they're saying, rather than arguing with the content of their posts.

Updated On: 4/20/21 at 10:09 AM

HogansHero said: "These last few posts are overloaded with bad premises.

"Like Schumacher, Rudin will probably continue to work and suffer no consequences. Schumacher never admitted to anything and the story went away. Rudin is stepping away, but is he really? No." Victor, you have repeatedly posted things related to Rudin that have no basis in fact as if they do, or are simply incorrect. This quote is a perfect example. First, Rudin has alreadyseen consequences and will see more. Second, you have no possible way of knowing if he is "really" stepping away. He has no choice. Do you seriously think that if he were to walk into a rehearsal of MM everyone would just say hello? The folks who brought this to a head (and you don't know who they are) did not do so to have it blow up again.

I’m curious to know what HogansHero does for a living? I think I know a bit more on this than you - I won’t divulge. Again, What is it that u do for a living?

HogansHero said: A text is a non-verbal telephonic communication. Analyze it as if it had been verbal.

It's a little bit splitting hairs, but I think overhearing a phone call and looking at someone's phone screen long enough to transcribe an entire email require significantly different degrees of effort, and I think they have different expectations of privacy.

If I had a phone call on a plane, I would expect everyone within a 5-10 foot range to hear it whether they wanted to or not. If I typed an email on a plane, my expectation, assuming the decency of the people around me, would be that no one would see it unless they intentionally chose to do so.

In any event, when I say invasion of privacy, I don't mean in a strictly legal sense. I know people's texts in public aren't legally protected. I mean people - right or wrong - have an expectation that their texts, even if done in public, will not be read by others. And if someone makes an effort to do so, that would be an invasion of that expectation of privacy. Earlier in the thread I described it as "unethical" and "questionable". It's also "rude", if that helps you understand.

I also think it's bad precedent. This time everyone is like "oh, it's fine, he was supporting a monster" but the next person whose private emails are exposed might have their life ruined for doing something you agree with. What was considered horrible 50 years ago? What about 50 years from now? It's important to be careful what norms we create, because they could just as easily be used against you one day.

@ctorres In your "filling the void in the echo chamber" response, you confound anything that obstructs your path. Everyone recognizes that when you do something stupid (like texting something you want to remain private when there is a person sitting cheek by jowl with you on a plane who can easily read it) you are not happy when it is disclosed. You may have a subjective expectation, and most of the time you get what you expected. I used to have (and hope I do again soon) an expectation that people I invited to join me at the theatre would show up on time. When they don't, I get all kinds of ticked off at them. But I have no RIGHT to expect they will show up on time. Which takes us to "splitting hairs" and "not in a strictly legal sense." These things are not just niceties; they are distinctions that affect what you are communicating (or trying to). As I said before, had you called the person any of those subjective things you mention, no one would have said anything. But that's not what you did. You wanted to fill the vacuum you found, as you say you almost always do. There is no objective expectation here because Roth was his own causal connection. Finally, trying to give me whiplash, you say "it's bad precedent." Precedent, of course, is a legal concept, but you are not interested in any strictly legal sense. What are you interested in? (I have my answer and I am sticking to it.) Sometime, as an experiment, try just saying how you feel about something (assuming you actually feel about anything) instead of wrapping it up in the trappings of some premise that can't bear its own weight. People may challenge opinions here, but they are always defensible.

unclevictor said: "I don’t think it’s sketchy to ask u what u do and not divulge what I do. I’ve already said I’ve worked on Broadway for over 45 years."

As I said, what you do or who you are is irrelevant. As I said, no one knows how this plays out. Yet you have attempted to speak with some authority when none is possible. And that would been true whether your 45 years were spent as a porter or as Bob Wankel. Now maybe if Gerry's ghost reappeared ...

https://deadline.com/2021/04/scott-rudin-film-stepping-back-from-film-and-streaming-projects-1234740242/