Posted: 10/24/17 at 10:49am
I mean, we've started making progress in blacklisting guys like Harvey Weinstein in Hollywood. Can Broadway follow suit and do the same to James Barbour, a man who was convicted of molesting a teenager and is somehow currently playing the lead in the most successful musical of all time?
Posted: 10/24/17 at 10:50am
Not to support him, but I think the Harvey thing is a bit different. I mean it's like hundreds of people speaking out...
Posted: 10/24/17 at 10:54am
Posted: 10/24/17 at 10:54am
It doesn't matter if it's one or a million. If you sexually assault someone, you shouldn't be able to go on in your career with a slap on the wrist.
To add to the fact, while I believe all of them, the charges against Harvey are currently just allegations. He hasn't gone to court yet. Barbour was convicted in a court of law, served jail time, and just barely escaped having to register as a sex offender.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 10:54am
Can't wait to see the lifespan of this thread!
Posted: 10/24/17 at 10:59am
Not sure what the connection is, Barbour was charged, pleaded guilty to the charges and served out his sentence/parole? So, he's then allowed to keep living his life... that's basically the way the system works.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:00am
"To add to the fact, while I believe all of them, the charges against Harvey are currently just allegations. He hasn't gone to court yet. Barbour was convicted in a court of law, served jail time, and just barely escaped having to register as a sex offender."
The difference between Weinstein and Barbour is that Barbour, in fact, has paid for his crime. I'm not a big fan of continuing to punish people when their time is served.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:02am
The sentence seemed incredibly light for Barbour. It was only 2 months. That's less time than Brock Turner spent in jail.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:02am
This conversation might prove interesting, were it not for the pesky fact that it's been explored a million times on this site already.
However, folks here do seem obsessed with revivals...
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:02am
This is not making any excuse for what he did, but it should be pointed out how messed up age of consent laws are. If this occurred in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or anywhere in New England, it would have been legal.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:04am
Alex Kulak2 said: "The sentence seemed incredibly light for Barbour. It was only 2 months. That's less time than Brock Turner spent in jail."
It was a plea deal, so he agrees to not go to trial, and they agree to a certain sentence. This is how the majority of criminal trials are avoided. Very common.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:05am
There was no massive coverup and threat of overwhelming use of industry-controlling power, press and law like there was with Weinstein, no decades of abuse and dozens and dozens of victims. I'm not saying that what Barbour did wasn't heinous, but... some perspective of the magnitude of the crimes is needed.
You can either want to see criminals reformed and able to re-enter society, or want them blacklisted and ostracized indefinitely. Barbour has been punished and seems to be reformed.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:13am
Kad said: "There was no massive coverup and threat of overwhelming use of industry-controlling power,press and law like there was with Weinstein..."
Are you forgetting the part where Barnour's lawyer asked for permission to blast his victim's name across the media, because he wanted to set up a hotline for "other men she's falsely accused?"
I haven't.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:15am
Anakela said: "Are you forgetting the part where Barnour's lawyer asked for permission to blast his victim's name across the media, because he wanted to set up a hotline for "other men she's falsely accused?"
I haven't."
So Barbour's lawyer shouldn't be the Phantom either?
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:18am
And was that allowed??? I mean...lawyers will try to do every last thing to get their clients off. That is their job. This was a ridiculous ploy that was unsuccessful.
I, in no way, condone what Barbour did. And sure...you're free to think that the punishment didn't fit the crime. But the fact is the DA accepted the plea, Barbour served his time and the justice system seems to have worked this time. Literally none of that has happened with Weinstein. Who left in-patient therapy after a week.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:20am
I'm not sure it would be possible to fully blacklist Barbour from the industry. Unfortunately, even though he got a very light punishment, he still served more time than many other abusers.
That being said, I don't think he should have been cast in such a high-profile role at this point, especially since Phantom has such a large amount of teen girl fans.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:24am
SonofRobbieJ said: "And was that allowed??? I mean...lawyers will try to do every last thing to get their clients off. That is their job. This was a ridiculous ploy that was unsuccessful."
No, it was immediately dismissed and the judge put a gag order on the case as a result.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:25am
LizzieCurry said: "Can't wait to see the lifespan of this thread!"
Where's johannabarker?!?
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:27am
'No, it was immediately dismissed and the judge put a gag order on the case as a result."'
So what you're saying is, there's actually NO correlation between Barbour and Weinstein. That's what I thought, too.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:28am
^ Not relevant.
We must, as a society, believe that people CAN change. If not, then what is the point of any rehabilitation? Just throw EVERY person that has broken the law in jail, and never let them out.
I also don't agree with the thought that people shouldn't be able to continue in the same line of work. You cannot continue to punish someone over and over and over again. Personally, you can certainly choose not to spend $ on anything he is a part of.....or even picket.....but I don't think he should be banned without benefit of redeeming himself.
And no, it's NOT the same thing as Weinstein, at all -- to the best of our knowledge.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:36am
Rainah said: "Look at the sheer number of people crowing about how Oak will never work again after the Comet debackle."
Oak just booked a new Shonda Rhimes show. People are wrong about lots of things.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:39am
Rehabilitation becomes more thorny an issue when taken in context of culture though. We live in a culture that constantly reduces, condemns, and brushes aside women who make sexual assault allegations, and pretends that men who commit sexual assault have nothing to be ashamed of.
Besides, where is the rehabilitation? Honestly, where is it? I do not see him talking about it. I do not see him doing any work to counter cultural narratives, to give back to communities he's hurt or work with men who are at risk of offending and prevent more crimes. Rehabilitation is a heavy weight, and it is a lifetime thing. You don't serve two months in jail and then you're good, go back to your life. His victim(s) will live with this for the rest of their lives. It is a lifetime commitment to ending sexual violence, especially when you were someone guilty of it
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:41am
haterobics said: "Rainah said: "Look at the sheer number of people crowing about how Oak will never work again after the Comet debackle."
Oak just booked anew Shonda Rhimes show. People are wrong about lots of things."
They were indeed. I was speaking more about the culture around here, and the difference between the way people talk about Oak and the comet debacle and the way people talk about James Barbour.
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:48am
Kad said: "You can either want to see criminals reformed and able to re-enter society, or want them blacklisted and ostracized indefinitely. Barbour has been punished and seems to be reformed."
I agree, he has been punished, he has done his sentence. He has the right to do his job.
People grow, learn and change. People make mistakes.
His name is already branded for eternity for something that would not have been illegal in other states. Give the guy a break.
Updated On: 10/24/17 at 11:48 AM
Posted: 10/24/17 at 11:48am
I understand the argument that he's already done his time. I do. Criminals should be able to support themselves after they're released.
On the other hand, Chris Peterson makes some good points in that article. For instance, Barbour deliberately used his career to commit his crimes against young girls, and was welcomed right back into that career with open arms the second he got out. And then there was the absolutely horrific victim-blaming that he and his lawyer engaged in. Do all the people who treat him like a matinee idol care one iota about that, or how it affected his victims?
A lot of people acted like Barbour was the victim here (the ATOTC people stood by him through his difficult time! Wasn't that just so darned noble of them!), and brushed off the actual victims. Including Barbour himself. That isn't right, and it's no wonder it left a lot of us angry. And I would hope that the Weinstein case has, at the very least, helped us be able to say openly that it isn't right, and to push back the next time it happens.
