Totally agree. I would not want to be figuratively on a stage next to that guy, taking a bow; and I would be very angry that the director secretly put me in that situation.
Sure, and as I said, she was welcome to walk away from the situation. Nobody forced her to appear with him, or at all. But instead, she used her power to take away his work. Sounds kinda like the reverse of #metoo to me.
I do think that her contract forced her to appear with him. I imagine breach of contract with a movie studio is going to be pretty bad for a career.
Narrator: It really wasn’t.
I agree that is really isn’t, but it is certainly her using the fact that she has a big name to punish somebody with no name for something in his past.
Do we know it was her name that made them drop the guy? Isn’t it just as likely that the studio knew a PR nightmare when they saw it, and dropped him to protect themselves?
The guy was convicted and paid the price that society deemed appropriate. I guess that’s not enough for some crimes?
Americans love to punish. Not to go on a tangent and not to speak directly on this particular matter, but it’s always interested me. Go to any random news article about a crime and if it’s anything short of a life sentence or execution (and sometimes even then), there’s always a bunch of people up in arms and wanting more.
I’m of two minds on this one.
One one hand, it is incredibly difficult to get a steady job if you are a convicted felon in the US. [As an aside, this is one of the more pernicious effects of the War on Drugs.] Someone convicted of a felony sex offense - even a non-violent one like what’s being described here - has effectively zero chance of ever being offered a salaried position with any large company, being offered a loan to start their own company, or really having any kind of normal employment. They often end up depending on the kindness of friends (as in this case) or constantly hustling for part-time menial work.
I have a great deal of sympathy for those who did their time, went to therapy, kept their noses clean, took their medication (in some cases), and did everything that society demanded of them… and yet are effectively doomed to a life-sentence of poverty with no parole, no appeal.
On the other hand, I do appreciate Munn’s position here. This guy was locked up for six months, almost certainly because he was trying to coerce a 14-year-old child to run away with him. In her place, I would have been just as furious that no one told me I was going to be working with an on-line child predator.
Even in the movie industry, there are plenty of gigs that don’t put you on the screen. Perhaps if Bill Cosby if gets out, maybe he shouldn’t return to that industry again… just saying. Weinstein hasn’t been convicted of anything, and he probably shouldn’t be in that industry again either.
If they want to load warehouses at night in the presence of other guys who can probably kick their ass if they do anything strange, that might be option.
I disagree 100%. Regardless of past offenses everyone should have the right to earn their living in any way they wish. This should be a basic human right.
Go ahead and disagree. We do background checks for a reason, and it would be incredibly irresponsible to put rapists around unsuspecting children in schools.
I think you are reaching here. We know she raised the issue, she’s bragged about raising the issue. And I personally suspect that has “Second Key Grip” raised the issue, he/she would have been invited to seek employment elsewhere if they didn’t like the situation.
For those who have no problem with this, what’s your take on:
-
drug dealers who sold to minors being employed in various positions. Is that okay or should they also be outed and hounded? What percentage of our population would that ostracize and what would the demographics of that group be?
-
your own jobs and co-workers. Would you be shocked if there were sex offenders in your company and would you be extremely pissed that management didn’t let you know? How about the checker at your grocery store?
If, as a society, we think that six months in prison is too short for this crime, then we should increase the sentence or put other, clear, formal restrictions on them as part of the sentence (e.g., probation, sex registry). But once that time is served, we should work on re-integrating that person into society. If we’re not willing to do that, then we should make the hard choice of keeping them locked up. We certainly shouldn’t resort to this type of vigilantism.
Personally, I hate drunk drivers with a passion—I think it’s incredibly selfish. But I understand that I shouldn’t go around trying to out them, ruin their lives, and make demands that none of them are at my workplace, once they’ve faced justice.
We would also need to make our prisons rehabilitative rather than punitive.
There’s developing a dichotomy between legal justice, which is normative, and social justice, which is performative.
I would argue that there is a difference between a back office employee and an employee that is visible in front of clients, because those employees will be scrutinized.
So, I have no problem with him doing janitorial work (good honest work that deserves more respect), but I can understand why Sony doesn’t want his name appearing on the credits of their movie. They are trying to protect their brand, which is fair.
By the way, @Stepsongrapes Drug Dealers making excellent entrepreneurs according… Was it freakamonics or Market Place? Anyway, I would hire them in my company, assume that Drug Dealing was out of desperation and greed, rather than some need to have sex with minor.
By the way, many people have been fired for posting terrible jokes on Twitter or starting fights with customers. Those arent nearly as bad as trying to get into a 14 year olds pants, but people were still fired.
Of course there has to be some nuance. The distinction is protection. Protecting kids from convicted sex offenders and (equally important in this context) protecting rehabilitated offenders from discrimination and vigilantism.
In the UK there is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I’ve no idea what the legal subtleties are for sex offences though.
These list of exempltions are pretty damn long:
Exemptions[edit]
Certain professions and employments are exempt from the Act so that individuals are not allowed to withhold details of previous convictions in relation to their job when applying for positions in similar fields. These professions include:
- Those working with children and other vulnerable groups, such as teachers and social workers
- Those working in professions associated with the justice system, such as solicitor or barrister, police, court clerk, probation officer, prison officer and traffic warden
- Doctors, dentists, pharmaceutical chemists, registered pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, nurses or paramedics
- Accountants
- Veterinary surgeons
- Managers of unit trusts
- Anyone applying to work as an officer of the Crown
- Employees of the RSPCA or SSPCA whose duties extend to the humane killing of animals
- Any employment or other work normally carried out in bail hostels or probation hostels
- Certain officials and employees from government and public authorities with access to sensitive or personal information or official databases about children or vulnerable adults
- Any office or employment concerned with providing health services which would normally enable access to recipients of those health services
- Officers and other persons who execute various court orders
- Anyone who as part of their occupation occupies premises where explosives are kept under a police certificate
- Contractors who carry out various kinds of work in tribunal and court buildings
- Certain company directorships, such as those for banks, building societies and insurance companies
- Certain civil service positions are excluded from the Act, such as employment with the Civil Aviation Authority and the UK Atomic Energy Authority.[4]
- Taxi drivers and other transport workers.
- Butlers and other domestic staff
So even the Act that “believes” in rehabilitation doesn’t’ really believe it that much to have this long list.
Look I think criminals are put in a hard place too, but if someone wants to help someone, they should do so with everyone’s knowledge. Disclose the fact.
Except for the whole not telling her part, which kinda did force her to appear with him.
Those questions kind of ignore what we think we know about the psychology of people who sexually abuse children. Convicted drug dealers probably aren’t driven by their own psychology to sell drugs to minors.