West Side Story revival? — Page 9

inception said: "MemorableUserName said: "https://gothamist.com/2018/09/05/nyc_ballet_lawsuit.php
Snip
"
Can anyone with half a brain actually believe someone would give permission for nude photographs to be distributed to her co-workers, in her workplace? Really? That's the defense Amansar's supporters are going with: "Maybe he had those women's permission to send her nude photographs to her co-workers!" Really?"

If anything comes out of this, I hope any naive young people reading this might have their eyes opened about how many many many men, no matter how nice they may seem, actually act when they are "with the guys." They view you as nothing more than something to be used & thrown away. Don't expect justice if you get treated badly. You won't get it. Don't trust anyone. Always keep your guard up. Learn self-defense & arm yourself."

What young people should take from this is BE CAREFUL. Because no one's chortling and high-fiving over what happened here, from what I can see. What I'm saying is that if the pics were offered freely, he doesn't constitute a threat to co-workers; if they were taken without permission, then yes he could very much be a threat and he shouldn't be hired.

Young people of both sexes, don't share a naked pic with such a person, and you don't have to worry. No one who might be in WSS with him share any pics with him. And, for everyone, as you can't ever know for sure what happens with a pic you share, make wise decisions. Consider carefully who your sharing what with. Merely common sense.

Updated On: 7/10/19 at 08:47 PM

He is sick and clearly illiterate as every single article has stated "pictures and videos were taken without consent or knowledge". Can't fix ignorant members of rape culture.  But, we now know who those posters are, which is important to know for the future.  

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=Lis4cO2R91MS028v6xQ2zA==

Updated On: 7/10/19 at 08:56 PM

Everyone in this thread acknowledges that the pictures of Alexandra Waterbury were (allegedly) taken without consent, but those photos were sent by Chase Finlay, not Ramasar. It seems like you might be conflating the behavior of the two.

Sorry, can't say everyone acknowledges something and then say "allegedly". There was a reason Chase has disappeared from Manhattan and ran home to CT and the other men were fired. They found the evidence, so no, there is no allegedly. You should stop defending either monster, and it you had read the complaint, you would know Amar sent pictures of other women without their consent or knowledge. 

LuPita2 said: "Sorry, can't say everyone acknowledges something and then say "allegedly."

Waterbury alleges that Findlay took the photos without her consent. It's a literal allegation, in the sense that it has not been proven in court.

LuPita2 said: "You should stop defending either monster, and it you had read the complaint, you would know Amar sent pictures of other women without their consent or knowledge."

I'm not defending it aside from correcting the misinformation that what Amar did was a crime (it wasn't).

JDonaghy4 said: "someone up top posted that it isn't illegal- thats just flat out wrong, and that you dont know that, tells me you dont know much about this subject"

What law did he break?

ctorres23 said: "JDonaghy4 said: "someone up top posted that it isn't illegal- thats just flat out wrong, and that you dont know that, tells me you dont know much about this subject"

What law did he break?"

I am not a jury or judge who has heard all the evidence, and its unclear to me if receipt of these images (which is what I think he is credibly accused of, and has not denied in any forum) is illegal. So if you are asking about this case, I can't give you an answer.

But as I am sure you know if you have even the most basic reading comprehension skills, I was saying that such dissemination of sensitive sexual material is, in many circumstances, illegal. Someone posted earlier that it isnt unless the victim did not originally give consent. that is false. I know NY and FL both have laws on the books along those lines and id be shocked if CA didnt as well. The spread of these sorts of laws acknowledges the inherent wrong in doing what was done here. You should, too.

 

<<edited by mods to remove now deleted post violating rules>>

Name-calling isn't necessary.

As I mentioned up thread, revenge porn laws don't apply here because they contain specific intent clauses ("...with intent to cause harm to the emotional, financial or physical welfare of another person..." ) that neither Ramasar's actions nor the other men's actions satisfy.

There is a Harvard Law blog article that discusses this case specifically and how Chase Finlay's actions are not covered by New York's revenge porn laws (or indeed any other state's).

Updated On: 7/10/19 at 10:42 PM

 

Curious about what these Jonathan Tunick orchestrations are going to sound like compared to the originals?

Elegance101 said: "Luminaire2 said: "What bizarre and ironic casting when you consider one of the most poignant and hard scenes in the show."

Oh Jesus. I forgot about that. I didn't care much about this revival anyway, but this casting makes me pretty sure I have no interest.

And as much as I love most of Rudin's work, keeping Ramasar in Carousel last year and now this casting grosses me out. I'm angry that such a powerful producer who is behind most of the art we see on Broadway is making this kind of statement."

What if Ramasar was truly regretful of his crime and promised never to do it again and had not been problematic during his time at Carousel?

An effective justice system requires reintegrating reformed criminals.