this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
730 points (98.4% liked)
Not The Onion
17239 readers
1671 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We don't need your help here..
Right? Like we get it, you're not in the files, and you want to remind everyone you were acquitted and found not civilly liable of your own sexual misconduct. But "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent," and dodging legal responsibility is not vindication.
Basically the courts don't matter and all that matters is public opinion? And this is where you launch into a "the courts are corrupt" and "the rich never get punished" or some similar BS?
I mean are they wrong that the rich never really get punished? Trump and those 34 convictions that resulted in nothing already forgotten? Diddy getting a not guilty for the severe charges also forgotten?
Ekhm... Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein are suddenly no longer considered rich?
So far Cosby's was overturned and he's not in jail, and Weinstein's was overturned and he is awaiting a retrial (granted, he is doing so in prison).
Lol all I could think was "these are terrible examples"
Legal doesn't always mean morally right. He's a free man, but that doesn't mean he still needs to take up one of the rare vip spots, I'm sure there are unheard voices and talented actors who deserve it more.
What matters is what’s true, and the courts ARE getting more compromised every day. The rich get punished less, that’s the way it’s always worked.
I guess this is where you took the most extreme possible opposing view and argued against that.
I wasn't wrong though. You just agreed with that exact position. 🤣
Point is there’s a spectrum of corruption and unfairness, and it’s getting worse. Guess you think the courts are perfectly fair and there’s no benefit to being rich? And I never said public opinion matters lol but fuck voting I guess, hooray for gerrymandering?
Mate, are you saying that Spacey has more pull, or access to better lawyers, than Harvey Weinstein...?
Lawyers? Maybe not. Blackmail on dangerous people? Maybe.
Remember that weirdly threatening video he put out on Christmas?
Remember when three of his accusers died and the rest dropped their charges?
The courts do matter, for legal decisions. They don't have the final say beyond that. Sure, you can use them as a data point, but the requirement for finding someone guilty for a criminal charge is "beyond a reasonable doubt" (aka, there's only a slim chance it isn't true).
Socially, that isn't required. Usually we only care if it's more likely than not. Sometimes, depending on the severity of the accusation, a lot of people have an even lower barrier for taking it into account to effect their opinion of the person. For example, if there's some evidence that someone is a murderer, but not "beyond a reasonable doubt," I'm probably not going to hang out with them, especially alone.
When it comes to matters of judgement, I use my own. The courts don't have to be corrupt for them to fail sexual assault victims, but yes there is plenty of corruption, too.
Are you suggesting economics don't affect putcomes in the courts? Are you suggesting that there is no corruption within the judicial system? Are you saying that sexual predators always go to jail for their crimes?
I find this especially hilarious considering his cases were on around the same time as Cosby’s and Weinstein’s.
It seems people honestly believe that Kevin Spacey has more pull/better lawyers than Harvey fucking Weinstein…
Different jurors.
Different circumstances and different crimes, and especially different victims.
Also, Weinstein and Cosby were openly assaulting women for decades. They victimized hundreds of women, and Cosby isn't even in jail anymore.
Is defending spacey really the creep hill to die on?
I just hate hypocrisy.
Me too but I ain’t gonna jump in to defend diddy cause he got off on the trafficking charges.
Bully for you.
Kevin Spacey aside, you seem to be saying you don’t support the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Not when your remaining accusers dropped their charges against you after a few of them died in mysterious accidents after you put out a weirdly threatening video on Christmas.
and one that "moved past your assault on him"- aka RAPP
Just say “no.”
Principles that only apply when it’s easy aren’t principles.
You're applying a moral code to me that I haven't agreed to. You don't know what my principles are.
This.
Followed by this.
Is highly suspicious.
If my only choice in this matter is to either see his movies or not, I will not. On matter of Hollywood, it's best to assume that they're all guilty of something if their success outweighs their talent. Why does Jared Leto keep getting work despite being terrible to work with? Could it be his private sex cult island?
I’m literally asking you what moral code you adhere to. Is “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” something you agree with, or not?
This isn't the court of law and my judgement does not have the same weight as a juror.
Also, what is and is not legal is not the same as what is and is not moral.
They already answered you. They don't feel that all of Kevin Spacey's accusers actually got their "day in court" because there's evidence to show that they were coerced into dropping their cases, and for some of them they died. So no, "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" doesn't apply when we didn't get an actual conclusion to most of the cases. There's a vast difference between being found "not guilty" and "having charges dismissed".
But apparently nuance is too much for you and you want simple hard fast rules that apply to everything. In which case, maybe read the thousands of years of moral philosophy dealing with that exact topic and see if you can reduce all of it to a single platitude. No one's done it before, but apparently your smartass is up for the challenge since you're the resident authority around here.
Innocent until proven guilty is not a moral code, it's a legal one. Courts do not dictate reality or morality, they are obviously imperfect social constructs and to pretend otherwise is foolish.
Is Redditor a slur here 😝😝😝
You seem to be saying you don't understand the concept or "innocent until proven guilty." That applies to legal repercussions. It doesn't mean that a man with many accusations of sexual assault deserves the benefit of the doubt. I find the numerous accusations against him credible, and I found his denials uncredible. Especially when you consider several of his accusers have died under questionable circumstances.
I find any accusations aggainst any celebrity have zero value unless proven in court beyond all reasonable doubt.
People who live off of lawsuits do exist.
Except the accusation came from another celebrity, and started a very long time before the lawsuit. Going public hurt the accusers career, and after Rapp lost his court case, 14 other victims came forward. They all described, independently, the same pattern of behavior.
Also, it wasn't only about the allegations with him. The dude made some bad PR choices as a result of the allegations that made him look like a shitty person whether or not he was guilty.
Right, like if I were on a jury, I don't know how I would vote given the evidence against him. But his reputation as a sleaze preceded the accusations. I wouldn't leave my kids alone with the guy.