Netflix Cancels House Of Cards

Image: IMDB/House of Cards

Following the wake of allegations that Kevin Spacey made inappropriate sexual advances to Star Trek Discovery star Anthony Rapp when he was 14, Netflix has reportedly cancelled House of Cards.

In a statement provided to Deadline, Netflix and Media Rights Capital (producers of House of Cards) said that they were "deeply troubled" by the allegations raised.

Media Rights Capital and Netflix are deeply troubled by last night’s news concerning Kevin Spacey. In response to last night’s revelations, executives from both of our companies arrived in Baltimore this afternoon to meet with our cast and crew to ensure that they continue to feel safe and supported. As previously scheduled, Kevin Spacey is not working on set at this time.

The allegations were made in a BuzzFeed article, where Rapp claimed Spacey had made a sexual advance to Rapp in the '80s at his apartment while he was 14. Following the allegations, Kevin Spacey released a statement on Twitter:

Filming reportedly began on the sixth season of House of Cards last month. No date had been set for the season's premiere, although it is expected to air mid next year.


Comments

    At least they can wrap it up a bit? Either way, Spacey's involvement has been somewhat written out last season anyway.

    I'm always concerned (but it's understandable that you'd want to distance yourself from this kind of thing) that things like this occur amid mere allegations that may or may not be true. Innocent until proven guilty is a pipedream that has long since been forgotten.

      Spacey admitted this sort of thing likely happened. He didn't deny it, even going so far as to apologise for its occurance. Rapp isn't known to be an attention seeker, given he's saying this happened when he was a child, this is a hell of an allegation.

      My primary concern personally though, is if this is a case of occurring when he was a minor, why did he not go to the authorities rather than publicise it widely? Was there a statute of limitations? Did he ever bother? I'm *not* victim shaming, but people are taking to social media lately to out and shame people, when the law should potentially be involved and is clearly getting bypassed in a lot of situations, relegating potential offenders to just having to 'put up with shit on facebook'.

        From Rapp's statements, it sounds like he compartmentalised the events. Also remember that this occurred in the mid 80s, so he might have thought that since he avoided getting raped there was nothing for the police to do. It's also possible that he kept quiet then because his own sexuality was a secret at that point.

        For the wider entertainment industry, I suspect there are a bunch of people (agents, other actors, etc) who have advised victims to take the civil route rather than criminal, out of concern for the the victim's future career. That is likely part of the problem.

          All very likely things. Especially in the 1980's when being openly gay was a career death sentence for a young man at that point, with only a few minor exceptions.

          However, I do stand by the idea now, that more and more people are coming forward *as they should*, but are taking to social media instead of the authorities. That can be an issue in itself, as when time comes to prosecute potentially, cases can be thrown out due to this kind of action.

            I believe in this situation there is a statute of limitations that is long expired.

            Looking at this particular case, what exactly could the police do? There were only two people in the apartment, so if it came to court it would be one person's word against another. And being 30 years ago, it would be pretty much impossible to collect any forensic evidence.

            With that said, speaking publicly about the incident could help others if it isn't a one-off incident. There's no evidence that Spacey has repeated this behaviour, but it could help other victims to have another incident public and acknowledged.

        Likely happened? I think you're putting words in his mouth. I suggest you re-read exactly what was said.

        Entirely agree with the rest of what you said however.

          I've done no such thing thank you.

          Spacey's exact words were and I quote *exactly* from his own statement:

          "I'm beyond horrified to hear this story. I honestly do not remember the encounter, it would have been over 30 years ago. But if I did behave then as he describes, I owe him the sincerest apology for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behaviour, and I am sorry for the feelings he describes having carried with him all these years."

          Spacey has been very careful with his words there, stating he does not recall. He has used conjunctions such as 'if' to avoid declarations of culpability, but has acknowledged the potential for it to absolutely happen. I put no words into his mouth, I spoke exactly as he did. I suggest you read the statement from Spacey again.

            What of that suggests that it's likely? Have you considered that it would be offensive and victim blaming if he outright denied something he didn't recall and suggest this person is a liar? Tell me what you were doing 30 years ago to this day with clarity. Honestly I thought it was more forgiving of a statement than it needed to be.

              Are you trying to be contrarian? Spacey outright apologised for the incident. He's got a track record of sleazy behaviour, he knows this sort of thing has occurred in the past in his own circles. In his own words, and I repeat,

              But if I did behave then as he describes, I owe him the sincerest apology for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behaviour, and I am sorry for the feelings he describes having carried with him all these years."

              Spacey by saying this, has said there is a likely chance that this did occur, he himself by merely apologising has acknowledged this. Has he said definitely? No. But likely, yes. Otherwise there would be no apology at all. That's how this works.

                That's quite a leap and even you habe to acknowledge that. None of that suggests guilt or confirmation of the accusations. If you want a real world interpretation of his statement then it's 'I have no recollection of this, how the hell am I supposed to recall such an event from so long ago when obviously I was drunk at the time. I am normally am ambassador for thus type of instance and as such I don't want to discount someone so as to undermine the reporting of sexual assault cases'.

                What do you honestly want from that? A confession? Why would you confess to something you didn't recall or even believe happened if thats the case?

                  Listen go on believing what you will, by all means. I like Spacey as an actor, but the fact he apologised for behaviour he has a well known history for speaks volumes. Again, he officially and publicly apologised to Rapp. That's fact. He acknowledged responsibility for possibly doing it, that's fact. Either way, I don't actually care what you think and I don't care to try to change your mind, have a good one.

                  There's not much of a leap in his logic that I can see. If it wasn't at all likely then a there's no need for an apology. Apologizing suggests that Spacey himself at least considers this to be likely. Not sure why you're so stridently arguing this point, rmn :-/

              As for what I was doing 30 years ago, I have distinct memories this time of year of riding my bike up and down Laverton avenue trick or treating ;) I came off my bike and wrapped it around a red, 3 foot high alarm post used in 1981 to set off alarms for fires. I then got taken to the hospital to have a cast set.

              Major incidents in life do etch themselves in :)

                Yeah wow what a trying time to recall an incident that may destroy your future 30 years down the track. For some reason I think it may be easier to recall inane things like that than incidents where drugs and alcohol are involved.

                  You're right, that time in your life he tried to fuck a 14 year old must've been totally inane... you know, given it was the actions of a pedophile.

    This doesn't seem like a proportional response to what for now at least appears to be a single incident 31 years ago that hasn't had the chance to be defended in court. People should of course be accountable for their actions, but the goal is surely to rehabilitate people who behave inappropriately, not to shun them for life like an inquisition.

      These days it’s all trial by public opinion and social media and it’s not likely to change.

      But hey, the two worst kept secrets in Hollywood finally got exposed; Kevin Spacey came out and Weinstein is a complete creep

        its not just this allegation about spacey, but apparently he is as big of a creep as Weinstein. With Weinsteins fall there are more and more stories comming out about other people in Hollywood, a big one that ive seen crop alot has been Bryan Singer and his "parties".

          Are there other allegations about Spacey? I've only seen this one, which is what makes it look like a knee-jerk reaction at the moment. If there's a track record to these allegations then the action seems a little less unreasonable.

          I definitely don't support a culture of silence and acceptance around things like this, I'd just rather see a little more public respect for the presumption of innocence. Trial by court is likely to be more balanced than trial by public opinion.

            Yes. He is accused of groping women and men while directing on the London theatre circuit.

              Do you have a link I can read? The only source I can find prior to this year on that is Gawker, which you can imagine I'm reluctant to want to read.

                There's a lot of disturbing similar claims prior to this case with Rapp. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to put links here but just give 'Kevin Spacy rough/mean" on datalounge, there are a lot of them going back as far as to 2011.

                No doubt New Idea will have something concrete in the next 24!

            This is no surprise.

            There have been endless stories about his inappropriate sleazing onto underage men. Like...16-18, not 14.

            He's a well known sleaze. Which doesn't make any evidence-less sinking of his career OK, but even he himself acknowledged there are more stories to come.

            And people - including those linked to this how - probably already know that.

            Here's some non-verified gossip from Gawker - although nothing here involves people underage.

            http://defamer.gawker.com/people-keep-telling-us-about-kevin-spacey-s-aggressive-1686507320

            Last edited 31/10/17 1:23 pm

      How would you like it if I tried to fuck your 14 year old sister/brother and they had to physically push me off and run off?

        I'm sure I'd be upset. But I wouldn't want something as subjective as my emotional response to be the foundational basis for justice.

          Emotional trauma and damage to victims and their families is one of the biggest factors in sentencing man.

            Sentencing comes after the evaluation of guilt. Whether someone is guilty or innocent is based on facts and evidence, not emotions.

              Apply the cold lens of logic to someone saying a Hollywood power player assaulted them as a child and then consider this is not a court of law, but a business and the operator of the business has no interest in employing an alleged paedophile.

                I didn't say Netflix isn't allowed to take this action, I said it doesn't seem proportional. I believe in the presumption of innocence as an essential element of justice, and I believe that innocent people shouldn't be punished merely for being the subject of an allegation.

                  It isn't a response; Netflix claims to have made this decision months ago but are only announcing it now (early) because of the news.

                  And there have been many rumoured tales of Spaceys assault of young men throughout Hollywood for years. At the moment it is still rumours, but I imagine more and more will speak up now.

                  At this point it isn't an allegation. Spacey admitted his part in this action. He hasn't denied it. Though he has not said he *remembers doing it*, he has unreservedly apologised, which will be seen as an admission of guilt at least by the law.

                  @weresmurf I don't agree. It's impossible for someone who doesn't remember an event to deny it, to do so would require that they remember what happened. In this context a lack of denial can't be construed as an admission of guilt.

                Alleged dude. Alleged. I'm sure he did it, but these decisions should be made on proven claims, not a tweet and then a social media lynching.

                  His response boils down to "oops, well I was drunk and gay, sorry".

                  @jbp His response was "I don't remember this event, if it happened as described then I apologise unreservedly". Your characterisation implies he acknowledged guilt, something not present in his actual statement.

              There is also no way to prove this in court, but it's fairly clear that Spacey did it when you factor in all the other ongoing rumours about his personal conduct. There is also no net benefit for Rapp talking about this. It's a shame because I like Spacey and always admired his incredible work, but I won't be watching anything he does from now on.

        On the other side, how would you like it if your brother or sister were accused of this without any proof from 30 years ago that happens to ruin your life and future propsects? I have no idea why anyone supports social media witch hunt justice.

          may not 30 years later, but false reports are a thing unfortunately. in fact there have been reports of solicitors advising divorcing couples to make up reports to have leverage.

          I personally know of someone who got caught up in a lie and it's ruined their then life. 10 years later, some people still think the guy is scum, when it was a lie by a young person to cover up their own misdeeds.

      You may want to consider that there's a very fine line between 'presumption of innocence' and 'victim blaming' when the victim in question is vulnerable and the alleged perpetrator powerful. Like, you know, a 14 year old actor vs Kevin Spacey. Of course it wasn't tried in court.

      The primary goal is not to rehabilitate people, it is to prevent them from further negative actions in any way possible and obtain restitution for their victims. Rehabilitation is a nice bonus beyond that.

        I believe I understand the line as best I'm able, I don't believe I've said anything that could be construed as blaming the victim. I mentioned in a recent article, it's possible (and preferable) to support victims without passing any judgement for or against the accused.

        I consider prevention and rehabilitation to be faces of the same coin, a person who shows a likelihood of offending again isn't rehabilitated and shouldn't be released. I don't consider imprisonment a form of restitution.

          How do you support a victim without acknowledging they are a victim?

            I think the best way to answer that is with a comparison: if you're out walking and find someone lying on the ground, your ability to help them to their feet, tend to their injuries and get in touch with the police if need be isn't contingent on whether their explanation that they were knocked over by another person is true or if something else was the cause.

            Acknowledging and helping someone who needs help doesn't have to also include committing to a singular explanation for why.

              Actually, yes it does, for the victim. And that's the problem with all your analogies and reasoning here. Your approach is entirely clinical - and as a result, strays into victim blaming territory because actual acknowledgment is required to avoid that. If you deny a victim's experience, you are most certainly not helping them.

              Please don't take this the wrong way - I understand your intentions are good. But the reality is, to an actual victim, not having the crime and perpetrator acknowledged shifts the blame onto them.

              And that is the issue with 'innocent until proven guilty'. As an ideal, it's a great one. As a practical social reality, bound by all the various issues of power and control that cloud the issue, it's not as simple as you make out, unfortunately.

              I do suggest you speak to more survivors of abuse and try and understand the wide range of perspectives they have. Internet debating points really don't cut it when dealing with actual trauma and just feed into the narrative of empowered people telling disempowered people how things 'should work'.

              Just spend a minute thinking about all the reasons why the vast majority of sexual abuse cases are unreported or not followed through by victims. The system is set up to protect perpetrators, not victims.

              While you may say 'better 99 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned' that's pretty damn cold comfort to the victims of those 99 men.

              Last edited 31/10/17 8:38 pm

                The family and friends of the victim can be as emotional as they need to be to hopefully make it through an experience. But we as strangers, and the court as an institution that must uphold the integrity of justice (precedent can impact subsequent rulings for decades) , need to remain clinical.

                Bearing in mind that consent is rarely the the black and white cut and dry scenario that it's made out to be, we can easily sympathise with a victim of a situation without unquestioningly accepting that someone has committed a crime against them.

                One of the key factors of so many of these recent allegations is the passing of large amounts of time before they are made public. The victims often say "I didn't fully process it at the time but in hindsight it's clear that my autonomy was violated." and we say "That's totally understandable." But when the alleged perpetrator says "I didn't realise at the time I was crossing a line" we say "BULLSHIT YOU'RE A RAPIST". We can't allow the victim the benefit of re-evaluating their history without judgement without giving the alleged perpetrator the same courtesy, surely?

                Bearing in mind I am specifically talking about grey area situations where there is the potential that miscommunication was a factor rather than Bill Cosby drug rapes. When all is said and done, it sounds from Rapp's account that once he made clear he wasn't interested to Spacey, that was the end of that. Did Spacey know Rapp was 14 at the time? Did he even know him? Is it a reasonable assumption to assume there wouldn't be a minor at an adult party and that Spacey believed he was propositioning an adult? Am I missing something? Maybe i've missed some more detailed account of the event. Let me know.

                  @burnside

                  Look i'm not going to debate who looked like what at the time, I already disagree with the tweet in that article that claimed he looked 10 years old. We're already not looking at that photo subjectively given we have more information to work with than Spacey potentially had at the time. If you show me a photo of someone and tell me they're 14 i'll believe you and say they're 14. If you ask me how old someone is without any suggestion I might give you a completely different answer.

                  I don't feel like this is productive route for this conversation to go down. I'd like to hear what you think about the other things I said.

                  If you cannot tell that is a child in that picture then you need to make an appointment with either an optometrist or a psychology professional.

                I don't appreciate the insinuation you're making that I haven't given this due thought. I have spent time with victims of sexual abuse both with a former girlfriend and the support group she was a part of, the stance I have on this was heavily guided by their input. I appreciate your perspective, but I value their first-hand assessments of what's important to them more.

                  I'm not insinuating anything at all, I am pointing out the limits of your experience. While you may have met survivors to whom acknowledgment is not essential, I can tell you there are very many more to whom it is. That's the point of abuse - it's idiosyncratic to the individual, and that's why your clinical 'one size fits all' responses are extremely damaging to some people.

                  I am not saying you're WRONG at all. I am just saying that this is a much, much more complicated matter than your assertive commentary makes out. You're trying to give easy answers to a situation that does not have them - and in doing so, your assertions are indeed on the side of victim blaming.

                  I am not saying you're doing that maliciously, far from it. But I am suggesting you consider the fact that the entire situation on every level is set out to protect abusers - which is why this abuse is so goddamn common.

                  If your approach truly was useful and effective, that would not be the case.

                  I'm not saying there's a simple answer in the other direction, simply pointing out that your line of reasoning is simply restating the status quo - a status quo that has been in place for thousands of years and has a direct result of massive levels of sexual abuse of women by men.

                  You're a smart person, I'm recommending you take a step back from simplistic assertion and consider more complex, nuanced approaches.

                  @burnside I understand my experience is limited, that's a truism that applies to all of us. I'm just trying to say that while what I'm saying may sound simplistic, it was not at all simple to reach this point and I have considered perhaps more than your initial reading suggests. The subject was a dominant one for the whole duration of that relationship, that kind of trauma deeply affects a person's ability to function in a relationship as I'm sure you can imagine. I've given this subject a lot of thought with a lot of outside input, and I remain open to more on both counts.

                  I want to help victims as best I can, but there are limits to what I can do while adhering to ethical principles that I hold important. A victim may feel like it'd be great to beat the shit out of their attacker but it wouldn't be right to help them do that - revenge and 'eye for an eye' are unethical. Likewise, judging a person as guilty without due process and before the exercise of their right to defend themselves is unethical. I realise it may sound cold and callous, but it's nevertheless true that not everything a victim wants can be afforded to them.

                  I don't agree with you that my stance involves victim blaming, I'm sorry. I think you're conflating acknowledgement that something happened with commitment to a specific account, and then presenting it as a dichotomy that one must either be for or against. I don't concur with that dichotomy, I see a spectrum with many positions in between, one of which is the position I've chosen to adopt.

                  @burnside Since I'm sure you could read my reply as closed, I want to add that I hope I haven't given you the impression that I'm unwilling to step back every now and then to look at things broadly. I'll happily do so again as you suggest in your last paragraph, but I must say that at the moment I feel like your position, in the best of faith, ventures into territory that I'm not ethically comfortable with, and it may well be the case in a week or two of introspection and seeking input from others that I will still feel that way.

                  Again, I want to be clear that I appreciate your input and respect your perspective. I just also want to be clear that this is a situation we may disagree on, and that I don't consider that disagreement to reflect negatively on either of us.

                  Fully take on board what you're saying and again, I do not mean it pejoratively.

                  The issue is that you are adhering to your own ethics. And by your lights, that's 100% fine.

                  What I am saying is that to many, many victims, your approach casts the blame on them simply as a result of that ethical position. You choose to err in favour of the alleged perpetrator.

                  In a case where a perpetrator is innocent, your judgment call is the best that can be made.

                  In a case where they are not, your judgment call pushes the blame to the victim unjustly.

                  YOU'RE not being unjust. You have an ethical position that is informed by centuries of philosophical reasoning. However that does not change the reality that your position enforces on said victim.

                  Please try and remove yourself from binary positions of blame and fault and look at this from a number of perspectives.

                  I'll put it bluntly. Your viewpoint is that of the status quo. A status quo where millions of women suffer abuse every year because your perspective is the dominant one. The onus is on the victim - and given the nature of the issue, you're disempowering the disempowered.

                  On the numbers, the status quo is empirically the worst choice. The number of women who suffer abuse is exponentially higher than the number of innocent men that would suffer if the onus was on the perpetrator (noting of course that it would still be a judicial process).

                  Now you personally advocate this bad choice because of a point of philosophy. As stated above, your argument comes down to 'better 99 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned'.

                  I'm not judging that. You're more than entitled to that point of view, you hold it without malice and from my personal point of view, I agree in most cases.

                  But what I am doing is simply pointing out that your point of ethics is the cause of possibly one of the worst scourges on humanity. That your most certainly well intentioned perspective is the shield that millions of abusers have hidden behind for a very, very long time.

                  I'm not advocating an easy solution, as there isn't one. All I am saying is that your assertions, while in a clinical, philosophical discussion are all fine and good, have very, very severe implications when they are deployed on a much wider social scale. And that as a smart person, I suggest you consider more nuanced approaches.

                  Because quite frankly, the status quo sucks. It's not working. It's the rotten core of our society. It's everything from ten year old girls and boys being raped in their beds to young people having their careers cut down if they dare speak out.

                  Your point of view is not the cause of this, far from it. But it's the vehicle by which we, as a society, say 'We don't really want to deal with this so let's err in favour of the powerful not the powerless'.

                  If that makes you uncomfortable, good. If it didn't, you'd be a sociopath. And there's plenty enough of those around.

                  And of course, Kotaku eats the fucking comment the moment I edit it. Thanks guys.

                  @burnside I know you're coming at this with the best intentions. If I disagree with your solution it's not because I want victims to suffer or want there to be a power imbalance, but because I think what you propose would replace one problem with another.

                  Things like the presumption of innocence and burden of proof aren't fringe elements trivially changed, they're the underpinning of the entire function of our justice system. They're so deeply interconnected that changing them would have broad repercussions that I'm not sure you've given consideration to. For example, false allegation rates correlate with the burden of proof - the higher criminal burden produces very few false allegations, while the lower civil burden produces considerably more. A reduction to the burden of proof can reasonably be expected to produce a correlating increase in false allegations.

                  You suggest elsewhere that rape should be regarded as guilty until proven innocent, but you don't seem to acknowledge that shifting the burden of proof away from the claimant severely undermines the logic of the argument as a whole - even outside of justice, the burden of proof has always been on the claimant because it's illogical to expect someone else to prove the negative - that the claim is unfounded. You may argue that logic is cold, but a justice system can't be based on anything else if it wants to treat everyone equally and fairly.

                  You imply that a presumption of guilt for rape would empower victims to come forward, but you don't seem to consider how it would empower those with power even more. For one, the claims would be even easier to dismiss as unjustified by a public that already has a hard time believing these crimes happen. It would also put an incredibly dangerous weapon in the hands of unscrupulous people. Why hide the fact you raped a girl when you can just get to the police first with the claim that she raped you? Then not only has she experienced the trauma of the rape itself, she's subjected to a system where she's treated as guilty unless she can prove otherwise. And how can she? She was in the same room as her rapist, she did have non-consensual sex with him. There's not a single thing she could say to defend herself from the claim, and so she's convicted of rape because someone more manipulative than her realised how easy it would be to game a system that shifts the burden of proof onto the accused.

                  I read the implication in your replies that I support the presumption of innocence not through rational evaluation but through social conditioning; if intended, this is an implication I reject. I agree with you that the status quo needs to change - I'm strongly progressive and care very little for tradition - I just don't agree that changes to these specific cornerstones of our justice system would be beneficial. That doesn't mean things shouldn't change, I absolutely think they should. But I cannot support a change that would have a net negative effect on society as a whole and on the plight of sexual assault survivors as well.

                And that is the issue with 'innocent until proven guilty'. As an ideal, it's a great one. As a practical social reality, bound by all the various issues of power and control that cloud the issue, it's not as simple as you make out, unfortunately.
                What better solution is there though? Guilty until proven innocent? Then we end up with a society where people who have a hard work day get their boss locked up on assault charges for giving them too much work to do. Where kids get there parents thrown in jail because they didn't get a new toy, etc.

                I'm sure I'll cop flak for this post but my point is the society we live in today, admittedly isn't great. It sucks that it's so difficult for victims of assault (sexual or otherwise) to come forward but that's caused by a long history of presumption of innocence in our legal system. If we flipped it over, it would probably be good for a while but people will always be arseholes and the system would be gamed so much easier than the one we have now.

                  Do you actually want to be reasonable about this? Sure.

                  Presumption of innocence is not the holy magic notion it was in Enlightenment days. It should be based on relative chance of offense, not applied wholesale.

                  So let's look at this empirically. We know that a huge percentage of women have suffered sexual abuse - the low end of the scale is generally in the 25% of the populace but we all know it's much, much higher than that because of the various pressure factors that prevent women from coming forward. Those pressure factors are HUGELY affected by the fact that 'innocent until proven guilty' protects the abuser, not the abused.

                  So you're looking at victims in the BILLIONS, worldwide, noting that many cultures are well behind us in dealing with this.

                  Billions of women with actual, real abusers who abused them.

                  Opposing this is the notion that some women will blame men without cause, or mistakenly identify attackers. And no one, not even the frothiest MRA, would be able to construct an argument that even vaguely suggests this would also be in the billions, far from it.

                  So what you have is a situation where billions suffer to protect, at best, millions.

                  If you're being reasonable, then that is out of whack. And the fact there are billions of victims proves it. If it wasn't so broken, sexual abuse wouldn't be a day to day issue for women the world over.

                  So if you want a *better* solution, then in terms of logical reasoning, the presumption should be guilty until proven innocent in this situation. Of course, given the amount of cultural programming you'll face promoting that notion, good luck.

                  And the fact that a huge percentage of men simply don't care, or are active abusers.

                  @burnside It seems you're willing to engage everyone else in debate, so i'll chime in here.

                  You're operating on this false dichotomy that's been the shaky foundation of all your arguments here. It's not about erasing victims, it's about determining perpetrators. It's entirely likely and more than often the case that someone can inadvertently cross someone else's boundaries without realising it. The victim still feels violated, but the boundary crosser may have had no idea or would have behaved entirely different had the person spoken up.

                  This isn't about victim blaming, this happens to everyone every day in all sorts of things. Think about when a boss scheduled you on for a shift without asking in advance, or when someone gives you a friendly punch in the arm that hurt a little too hard. Just the other day I was forced to make a large purchase for my friend's wedding that he never cleared with me in advance. So often, at the time, we just grin and bear it, but looking back, we get angry and feel hurt and everyone we tell about it makes us realise they were in the wrong. It's easy to extrapolate these things out, and no, i'm not equating rape to working extra shifts so please don't try make that argument.

                  So the argument isn't "if there are 'billions' of abusers, there must be billions of liars", the argument is "how many of these people were actual rapists and abusers who knowingly and forcibly crossed a line, and how many of these people mistakenly crossed a line?". And "How many can we actually prove without compromising the legal system and due process?"

                  You claim that @zombiejesus is oversimplifying but that's actually what you are doing. Everyone else here is saying "it's not simple" and you're the one claiming it is: "1 billion victims = 1 billion abusers"

                  And as an aside, stop perpetuating this notion that women don't come forward because of a society or legal system (law enforcement, courts, etc) that shames/silences them. This notion is spread far and wide by the far left with likely good intentions but it's at least partially responsible for the idea victims have that they can't report to the police and instead must report to the Judge, Jury and Executioner that is Social Media. Police are there to help you, the legal system is frustrating for a reason, and anyone who matters is not going to erase your experience.

        I understand what you're saying nut what would be your solution? A person accuses another person of sexual assault - go from there.

        How do you ensure that a person isn't accused of a crime and face repercussions before any examination. How do you also do that without 'victim blaming'?

          That's the problem. There is no easy answer. If you protect the alleged perpetrator then you're blaming the victim. If you protect the victim then you're alleging without proof.

          As I said above, our system protects the perpetrator. While that's nice from one point of view, it's the reason why domestic violence and sexual abuse is a part of almost every woman's life - it's that widespread.

          Honestly? Given the epidemic nature of the issue, you will cause considerably less harm by blaming a given number of innocent men. Of course, given that a huge percentage of men

          a) Are in denial about the scale of abuse
          b) Are complicit in covering up abuse one way or the other

          Then don't expect that to have any traction. We just keep the status quo, where women are abused en masse and we all tsk tsk on the rare occasion it comes to light as if it's some kind of rare event.

        The primary goal is not to rehabilitate people, it is to prevent them from further negative actions in any way possible and obtain restitution for their victims.

        If that were the case we would still have the death penalty or all crimes would end with life imprisonment or a trip to Australia.. Oh wait.

        My point is sentences are generally given to discourage people from committing again (i.e. A form of rehab) and restitution as you mentioned.

        When we're talking about a 30 year old crime though, rehab may not be relevant anymore (it still is if we're talking crazies like Julian Knight who will never be rehabilitated), restitution can still be a valid goal though, the events of the time past should really be taken into account with that still though.

        Last edited 01/11/17 10:51 am

      If it was someone that infiltrated a church or a school would you still feel the same way? Is it ok if they 'don't remember' and should they be rehabilitated and forgiven ?

        I'm not sure I understand your question, what does 'infiltrating a church or school' even mean?

        Excepting certain very limited circumstances, a person is responsible for their actions whether they remember them or not. Rehabilitation should always be the intention regardless of the crime, though there's no guarantee of success. This is part of what the parole system is meant to encompass.

        Forgiveness is complicated because it's essentially a personal emotional thing, and those affected by someone's crimes have to make that decision themselves, individually.

      Or this was always going to be the last season, and it got announced early due to current cirumstances.

      It's not really out of proportion. He sexually imposed himself upon a 14 year old boy as a 24 year old. I don't agree in trial by public opinion, but if he chose to immediately do the old apology by way of twitter rather than going to court over it, they're playing it out that way, rather than seeking guilt or innocence via a court of law.

    Damn that seems like a massive knee jerk reaction to unproven allegations

      Why would Rapp lie about this and how on earth would you prove it even if you had a time machine that could got to 1986?

      There are other allegations against him as well. I love Spacey, but this is making me pretty angry. Won't be surprised if more comes out.

      Last edited 31/10/17 10:35 am

        Why would he lie about it? Did you even know who he was before this? Many people didnt.

        There's very little risk to this at the moment. If someone launches defamation charges then it seems like they're spiteful and guilty. If they don't and apologise, theyre insincere and dismissive. There's literally no way out of an accusation like this.

        Granted this comment will be censored for suggesting a 'victim' may have an ulterior motive.

          While I think your doubt in this particular case is unfounded, we have gone too far the other way now in believing every single allegation without fail. It's a typical "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" situation, where in not wanting to shame victims coming forward, we've cast aside any sort of critical thought whatsoever.

          Anyone who argues that we should believe any allegation because "Why would they lie about something like this?" take it one step further and ask "Why would someone rape?" The answer: because people are fucked up. They can rape, and lie about rape, for no other reason than they are bad people. You can't live in a world where we have clear evidence that people rape and then scoff at the notion that someone might lie (surely considered a lesser faux pas and thus more likely to be prevalent).

          This isn't asking you to change your mind about allegations, just demanding that you be consistent with your logic.

    From what I have heard it was already a big possibility this season would be the final season anyway. Last season was a bit forced in my opinion and i'd been thinking it might end soon with them running out of places to take the story.

    HoC needed to have finished up a season ago, its just become too long and drawn out IMO.

    As for the allegations, can we please stop with these 'decades in the past' allegations (and you know, report it to law enforcement, not the bloody media).

      it's past the statute of limitations

    There is no quote from an official source saying it's been cancelled?

      The report is they've 'cancelled' the show following season 6 - ie. season 6 will be the last. The Deadline article has an update at the top that mentions "Netflix today decided to pull the plug on the Spacey-starring House of Cards after the upcoming sixth season next year".

    ThatEscalatedQuickly.gif

    House of Cards was dying anyway. Glad they pulled the pin early.

    I'm glad that the comments in here are mostly from a logical, reasonable perspective.

    There's every chance that it happened, but we shouldn't be stringing Spacey up and throwing rocks at him over allegations.

    What's to stop anyone who feels like they were slightly wronged by someone in Hollywood, say by being denied a part or similar, who know holds a grudge, to come out and make similar allegations, knowing that their remarks will lead to the person's downfall without any evidence.

    I'm so confused tho

    Top of the article says
    Netflix has reportedly cancelled House of Cards.

    End of the article says
    Filming reportedly began on the sixth season of House of Cards last month. No date had been set for the season's premiere, although it is expected to air mid next year.

Join the discussion!