Same goes in the US now, basically for any job involving children at all.
Sounds very similar to what Louie did.
By all means the man can try to earn his redemption. But don’t try to trick people into working with sexual predators by withholding that information.
For Olivia Mann specifically, she’s been dealing with sexist bullshit her entire life. First it was accusations about her being a “fake geek” on all the tech shows. Then she was paraded about like a sex object on those shows. Then she faced unfair and undeserved attacks when earning her place on The Daily Show.
I’m sure she has plenty reason to not want to work with a known sexual predator without her realizing it.
I just read this yesterday and it’s very pertinent to this story:
And she is a victim of “the fappening”.
TIMBER. As I stated earlier: this is pretty big. Moonves is one of the Top 5 most powerful people in entertainment.
It sounds like following the publication of Farrow’s latest piece, Moonves won’t be receiving any compensation when he exits CBS.
Update: Three hours after the publication of this story, CNN reported that Moonves will step down from his position at CBS. A person familiar with the discussions said that Moonves will no longer receive any of his exit compensation, pending the results of the independent investigation into the allegations, and that a portion of the amount he would have received will be donated to organizations focussed on sexual harassment and assault.
Also, last week the Huffington Post reported that he tried to ruin Janet Jackson’s career after that Superbowl debacle because she didn’t apologize to him.
Moonves banned Jackson and Timberlake from the 2004 Grammys broadcast airing on CBS the week after the Super Bowl. But Timberlake was allowed to perform after he tearfully apologized for the incident, according to conversations Moonves had with my sources.
The CBS chief executive, according to sources who spoke to me, was furious that Jackson didn’t make a similarly contrite apology to him. The fallout from the incident inflicted significant damage on Jackson’s career ― which until that point had produced 10 No. 1 hits ― and still reverberates to this day.
Moonves ordered Viacom properties VH1 and MTV, and all Viacom-owned radio stations, to stop playing Jackson’s songs and music videos. The move had a huge impact on sales of her album “Damita Jo,” which was released in March 2004, just a month after the Super Bowl.
Seven years after the 2004 incident, Moonves told several sources he was furious when he found out Jackson had signed a book deal with Simon & Schuster for her book True You: A Journey to Finding and Loving Yourself . Simon & Schuster is owned by Viacom.
“How the fuck did she slip through?” Moonves asked while recounting the story to a source who spoke to me. He told another source that heads were going to roll as a result of the deal.
It’s never enough for these guys to abuse women, they have to take the next step to try and destroy them.
That internal investigation by CBS sure was thorough and serious, wasn’t it
rolleyes
I guess I just don’t get it: so sex offenders should just be executed, since they clearly can’t be allowed to exist in society at any point in the future? Regardless of what they actually did, or what punishment they received and completed?
Because not being secretly hired to work on a film is just like being executed.
But never being allowed to work again because your coworkers apparently get veto power over your ability to support yourself doesn’t seem a very viable approach.
Oh I don’t know. People in the Trump Adminstration might hire him without any issues. In fact, his offense might be a plus.
Was he really secretly hired though? I tend to agree with Benny’s point - for any other crime, we’d probably be screaming if someone had served their time and it had been disclosed.
Imagine someone who did time for assault and battery, armed robbery, or drug distribution. Now they’re working at a job site. So the boss goes around telling everyone about it. I think he would be excoriated by the same people.
And it would be particularly weird to disclose someone’s criminal history to everyone at a work site. Even though, for example, an ex-addict may very fucking well want to know about having someone who sold drugs working with him now.
Okay, so now imagine that someone murdered a 14 year old. Where do we stand now?
I get what you’re saying, @BennyProfane. The execution bit was hyperbole obviously, but there is an issue in how we treat people who have served their time. If we don’t allow them to move on with their lives, I would imagine we’re only going to drastically increase the chance of recidivism of some kind.
It’s a tricky situation, though, and I think context matters. I wouldn’t want a child molester to work at a daycare or elementary school, for example. If someone was caught embezzling millions of dollars, I wouldn’t want to hire him as CFO for my company.
That’s where I’m not too sure where I sit with this situation, though. He wrote something in an email to a 14-year old that was bad enough it landed him in jail, but in this case it sounds like he had a small part in the new Predator movie (the irony is almost too much for me…)? I think his history should be known if he is interacting with children, but that’s what the sex offender registration is for. I think a person needs to have a way to earn a living and re-establish themselves in society and I’m not clear on what the risks were here.
Olivia Munn didn’t put this guy on blast. She found out about his history, then went to the studio and asked for his removal because she didn’t want to be featured in a scene with him. The studio complied. A reporter found out and put the story out, prompting the public statements from the studio and Shane Black.
News reports say he was trying to entice the 14-year old into sex. If so, he’s a predator. Should he be able to work? Sure. Should he be a movie star? No, I don’t think so. There are other jobs, ones which can’t be seen to be promoting him. And hiring him without telling his fellow actors about him is a kind of a dick move.
thank you for being reasonable. I think it is pretty obvious that there are certain situations from which a convicted criminal should be barred–as you suggest, for example, child molester from daycare, etc. But in general, if a person has served their time, its nobody’s damned business what they are doing afterwards. The sex offender registries are so badly abused by states as it is, if we reach the point where an employer is required, or even feels justified, in telling all of their employees the backgrounds of each of their coworkers, we are going to be in a world of a mess.
I just don’t see that it was any of Munn’s business. Once she found out, she is certainly welcome to walk away from the situation. But she is in the wrong here for getting somebody else fired, and I applaud her costars for letting her know they didn’t appreciate her behavior. She might as well be requiring him to wear a red “A” on his shirt.
If he’d been convicted for (say) burglary, or even robbing a bank, and served his time, no one would have said a word. He was convicted for trying to sexually assault a child.
I think Munn handled it well. She complained to the studio and let them handle it. She knew that complaining to the director would get her nowhere since he’s friends with the guy, and has been casting him in small parts for years.
Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be in a scene with the guy either, and if I had the kind of pull Munn does, I would’ve used it.