George Takei now accused of sexual assault

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The darling of the left is now accused. It's one a day now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You clearly aren't paying attention if you think it's been only one a day. For whatever reason, the Weinstein case has opened a floodgate of such stories and not just in Hollywood as Roy Moore has learned. Unlike Moore, Takei has but a single accuser so far which renders the right's usual claims when it's one of their own who gets accused, that the accuser either is wrong or had a mistaken impression, more credible.

Still, each case needs to be judged on it's own. The someone else is crappier doesn't change the fact the someone you're trying to defend is still crap.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Oh, Ernest, I have no desire to pay attention to every allegation. Takei is such a hero of the left this one was worth reporting.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Disappointing to say the least, hopefully the statute of limitations hasn’t passed and Takei can be put in a jail cell where he belongs.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I am predicting that this "bandwagon" effect of "victims" coming out of the woodwork and accusing prominent figures of all sorts of impropriety will soon result in a backlash toward the accusers.  A number of them will be seen as attention whores and gold-diggers; classes of folks that are generally abhorred by the average person.  This will happen, in no small measure, because of the increasing demand that folks accept more and more accusations at face value, on the basis of little more than a "He said, She said".  

I am sympathetic to victims who come forward.  I am sympathetic to victims who have been legitimately intimidated into coming forward and are now coming forward.  I am especially sympathetic to victims who are being intimidated, and quickly come forth anyway.  But to say that there is no possibility that there will be a "cottage industry" of Faux Victims, hoping to cash in on the slimy (and sometimes illegal) behavior of the Spaceys, Cosbys, Weinsteins, et al, is naivete.  If we are required to take EVERY alleged victim at their word when they make allegations like this, without requiring anything resembling a standard of, proof, can literally anyone come forth against anyone and ruin anyone's career and reputation?

These situations need to be resolved by the courts and law enforcement, and not by the media.  People in America, even Hollywood (ugh) figures, deserve a presumption of innocence, and fairness in how they are dealt with.  I suppose this would only happen in a Perfect World, but that the World is imperfect doesn't mean that we shouldn't have our eyes on what the standard is.

[Silent Hunter]

Takei has issued a full denial on his Twitter account, saying he has no memory of even meeting the man in question.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Takei has issued a full denial on his Twitter account, saying he has no memory of even meeting the man in question.

Ok. Case closed. I'll lock the thread soon.

[Inmate Trump]

Just as with Moore, this needs to be seriously investigated.

Unlike Moore, Takei is not in (or running to be in) a probable position to impact our government.  What employer would hire someone for a job who is under investigation for being a pedophile or sexual harasser?  Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely, but eligible for holding a serious impact on the way our country governs, potentially the way it governs these very types of issues?  Yea, no.  Not until the accusations are shown to be false.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I am predicting that this "bandwagon" effect of "victims" coming out of the woodwork and accusing prominent figures of all sorts of impropriety will soon result in a backlash toward the accusers.  A number of them will be seen as attention whores and gold-diggers; classes of folks that are generally abhorred by the average person.  This will happen, in no small measure, because of the increasing demand that folks accept more and more accusations at face value, on the basis of little more than a "He said, She said".  

I am sympathetic to victims who come forward.  I am sympathetic to victims who have been legitimately intimidated into coming forward and are now coming forward.  I am especially sympathetic to victims who are being intimidated, and quickly come forth anyway.  But to say that there is no possibility that there will be a "cottage industry" of Faux Victims, hoping to cash in on the slimy (and sometimes illegal) behavior of the Spaceys, Cosbys, Weinsteins, et al, is naivete.  If we are required to take EVERY alleged victim at their word when they make allegations like this, without requiring anything resembling a standard of, proof, can literally anyone come forth against anyone and ruin anyone's career and reputation?

These situations need to be resolved by the courts and law enforcement, and not by the media.  People in America, even Hollywood (ugh) figures, deserve a presumption of innocence, and fairness in how they are dealt with.  I suppose this would only happen in a Perfect World, but that the World is imperfect doesn't mean that we shouldn't have our eyes on what the standard is.

Innocent until proven guilty is for the courts, you don’t need a conviction to make up your mind.  For example, Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Gary Goddard, Bret Ratner, Bryan Singer, Kevin Spacey, John Travolta, and Bill Cosby are all clearly sex predators imo even though none have been convicted of any sexual offenses thus far.  And yes, what you describe is certainly possible (but a smaller one then you’d think given that false reports make up only 6-8% of all sexual harassment/assault/rape accusations), but why is that your chief concern (apologies if I misunderstood your post btw)?  I’m more concerned about people being afraid to come forward, especially after the absolutely disgusting display we’ve seen from the AL Republican Party.

[BudgieForce]

If you believe George Takei's accuser, you have to believe Moore's accusers. And vice versa.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If you believe George Takei's accuser, you have to believe Moore's accusers. And vice versa.

No you don't.  Each case stands on its own. Believe whomever you choose.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I am predicting that this "bandwagon" effect of "victims" coming out of the woodwork and accusing prominent figures of all sorts of impropriety will soon result in a backlash toward the accusers.  A number of them will be seen as attention whores and gold-diggers; classes of folks that are generally abhorred by the average person.  This will happen, in no small measure, because of the increasing demand that folks accept more and more accusations at face value, on the basis of little more than a "He said, She said".  

I am sympathetic to victims who come forward.  I am sympathetic to victims who have been legitimately intimidated into coming forward and are now coming forward.  I am especially sympathetic to victims who are being intimidated, and quickly come forth anyway.  But to say that there is no possibility that there will be a "cottage industry" of Faux Victims, hoping to cash in on the slimy (and sometimes illegal) behavior of the Spaceys, Cosbys, Weinsteins, et al, is naivete.  If we are required to take EVERY alleged victim at their word when they make allegations like this, without requiring anything resembling a standard of, proof, can literally anyone come forth against anyone and ruin anyone's career and reputation?

These situations need to be resolved by the courts and law enforcement, and not by the media.  People in America, even Hollywood (ugh) figures, deserve a presumption of innocence, and fairness in how they are dealt with.  I suppose this would only happen in a Perfect World, but that the World is imperfect doesn't mean that we shouldn't have our eyes on what the standard is.

Innocent until proven guilty is for the courts, you don’t need a conviction to make up your mind.  For example, Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Gary Goddard, Bret Ratner, Bryan Singer, Kevin Spacey, John Travolta, and Bill Cosby are all clearly sex predators imo even though none have been convicted of any sexual offenses thus far.  And yes, what you describe is certainly possible (but a smaller one then you’d think given that false reports make up only 6-8% of all sexual harassment/assault/rape accusations), but why is that your chief concern (apologies if I misunderstood your post btw)?  I’m more concerned about people being afraid to come forward, especially after the absolutely disgusting display we’ve seen from the AL Republican Party.

I'm concerned with victims not being able to come forward as well.  And, yes, folks can make up their minds about folks without a verdict.  

I would ask you if you would want to be one of the 6% to 8% who is the victim of a false accusation, and you suffer, at a minimum, the extra-legal consequences of such an action (loss of career and good reputation, being publicly ostracized, collateral damage as far as your family goes)?

I've been selected for Jury Duty twice.  I've never served on a jury, but one of the questions I was asked each time was whether I thought it was worse for a guilty person to be acquitted (and unpunished) or for an innocent person to be convicted (and suffer punishment).  Of course, all potential jurors chose the second option as the worse (convict the innocent) and there was no question that this was the "right" answer.  I think that folks need to consider this, and consider that, when making allegations about folks in print and media, that spirit ought to be governing.

[BudgieForce]

If you believe George Takei's accuser, you have to believe Moore's accusers. And vice versa.

No you don't.

Then your a hypocrite. Its pretty simple.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If you believe George Takei's accuser, you have to believe Moore's accusers. And vice versa.

No you don't.

Then your a hypocrite. Its pretty simple.

Each case stands on its own. Believe whomever you choose. I'm not sure I believe this allegation

[BudgieForce]

If you believe George Takei's accuser, you have to believe Moore's accusers. And vice versa.

No you don't.

Then your a hypocrite. Its pretty simple.

Each case stands on its own. Believe whomever you choose.

Each case stands on its own depending on the accused political affiliation is what your saying.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If you believe George Takei's accuser, you have to believe Moore's accusers. And vice versa.

No you don't.

Then your a hypocrite. Its pretty simple.

Each case stands on its own. Believe whomever you choose.

Each case stands on its own depending on the accused political affiliation is what your saying.

Read my modified post above. I'm not sure I believe this allegation.

[kyc0705]

If you believe George Takei's accuser, you have to believe Moore's accusers. And vice versa.

No you don't.

Then your a hypocrite. Its pretty simple.

Each case stands on its own. Believe whomever you choose.

Each case stands on its own depending on the accused political affiliation is what your saying.

Read my modified post above. I'm not sure I believe this allegation.

Why? The WaPo story is airtight. Multiple different accusers, dozens of individuals confirming the claims of the accusers. It's different from a single person telling a single story, like what's happening here. To put it another way, one is easier to deny than the other.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

George Takei has led a pretty squeaky clean life by Hollywood standards. Another case of suspect timing.  Until more comes out I'm inclined to believe Takei's denial.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Just as with Moore, this needs to be seriously investigated.

Unlike Moore, Takei is not in (or running to be in) a probable position to impact our government.  What employer would hire someone for a job who is under investigation for being a pedophile or sexual harasser?  Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely, but eligible for holding a serious impact on the way our country governs, potentially the way it governs these very types of issues?  Yea, no.  Not until the accusations are shown to be false.

Here's a question with Moore:   All but one of the allegations were made by folks who where the age of consent at the time of the action.  The allegations involve folks that are 16 and up are, essentially, acts of consent that folks came to regret and see in a different light years later; they were, arguably, not crimes.  Even the act with the 14 year old (assuming it's true and assuming she was under 16 at the time) is covered beyond the Statute of Limitations.  None of this makes it right or savory, but if it's not a prosecuteable crime, who will be doing the "investigating", and to what end?

Voters can make up their own mind about Moore, politically and personally.  Individuals can pursue civil suits, hire their own private investigators, etc. (assuming Moore is still vulnerable to civil liability).  Who is going to do the investigating, and what will they be investigating?  Even unsavory folks don't just automatically deserve to be "under investigation" by a governmental entity when there are no criminal charges the subject being investigated is liable for.

[Inmate Trump]

Just as with Moore, this needs to be seriously investigated.

Unlike Moore, Takei is not in (or running to be in) a probable position to impact our government.  What employer would hire someone for a job who is under investigation for being a pedophile or sexual harasser?  Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely, but eligible for holding a serious impact on the way our country governs, potentially the way it governs these very types of issues?  Yea, no.  Not until the accusations are shown to be false.

Here's a question with Moore:   All but one of the allegations were made by folks who where the age of consent at the time of the action.  The allegations involve folks that are 16 and up are, essentially, acts of consent that folks came to regret and see in a different light years later; they were, arguably, not crimes.  Even the act with the 14 year old (assuming it's true and assuming she was under 16 at the time) is covered beyond the Statute of Limitations.  None of this makes it right or savory, but if it's not a prosecuteable crime, who will be doing the "investigating", and to what end?

Voters can make up their own mind about Moore, politically and personally.  Individuals can pursue civil suits, hire their own private investigators, etc. (assuming Moore is still vulnerable to civil liability).  Who is going to do the investigating, and what will they be investigating?  Even unsavory folks don't just automatically deserve to be "under investigation" by a governmental entity when there are no criminal charges the subject being investigated is liable for.

Just out of curiosity, would you vote for a 30 year old man who had sex with multiple girls who were 16 years old?

I'm not asking about age of consent or the legality of it; I want your personal feelings on whether or not a man 30+ years old who has sexual relations with 16 year olds is fit to serve in public office, with influence over the laws which govern us all?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

George Takei has led a pretty squeaky clean life by Hollywood standards. Another case of suspect timing.

I’m inclined to believe the accuser unless I see actual evidence or an actual reason they may not be credible.  I mean George Takei has a very clean *public* image, but so did Matt Damon and Kevin Spacey (the former has actively used his influence to pressure reporters not to write stories about sexual assault accusations against both Harvey Weinstein and Casey Affleck).  Yeah, some of these guys either had already faced public allegations or well-known rumors in the past (ex: Bryan Singer, Louis C.K., Brett Ratner, Roman Polanski, Steven Seagal, Dustin Hoffman, etc) or were already notorious for being egomaniacal megalomaniacs (ex: Harvey Weinstein, Matthew Weiner, etc), but some of them like Richard Dreyfuss, Kevin Spacey, George Takei, James Woods (who apparently was knowingly hitting on two 16 year olds), and frankly Roy Moore (not that I didn’t already think he was a HP) came as a complete shock to me when I learned about them.  Out of curiosity, is there anything about the actual accuser or his accusation that makes you skeptical?  

And I don’t really see what the timing has to do with any of this.  Victims often don’t come forward b/c they’re ashamed, afraid no one will believe them, that people in positions of power will be able to ruin their [the victim’s] lives by digging up every bad thing they’ve ever done, and that it will turn the victim’s life (and their family’s lives) upside down.  When someone as powerful as Harvey Weinstein went down that quickly with such a vast outpouring of support for his victims, I think it gave hope to victims of other sex predators and showed that they aren’t alone.  As more and more sex predators are exposed, one would logically expect more people to come forward.  Obviously I agree though that these should all be viewed on a case-by-case basis.  For example, the accusation against Jeffrey Tambor may or may not be true, but I’m certainly far more skeptical of it than I am of the one against Matthew Weiner.

On a different note, one thing that’s really bothered me is that there hasn’t been a similar movement to condemn folks like Bill Murray, Christian Slater, Terrence Howard, Sean Penn, Mel Gibson, Johnny Depp, Sean Connery, Gary Oldman, etc who appear to have been given a pass by Hollywood for their histories of violence against women.  Before anyone says Gibson’s career took a hit, the man was just nominated for an Oscar and I wonder whether the industry backlash against him wasn’t really just people being angry about his well-known anti-Semitism.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

George Takei has led a pretty squeaky clean life by Hollywood standards. Another case of suspect timing.

I’m inclined to believe the accuser unless I see actual evidence or an actual reason they may not be credible.  I mean George Takei has a very clean *public* image, but so did Matt Damon and Kevin Spacey (the former has actively used his influence to pressure reporters not to write stories about sexual assault accusations against both Harvey Weinstein and Casey Affleck).  Yeah, some of these guys either had already faced public allegations or well-known rumors in the past (ex: Bryan Singer, Louis C.K., Brett Ratner, Roman Polanski, Steven Seagal, Dustin Hoffman, etc) or were already notorious for being egomaniacal megalomaniacs (ex: Harvey Weinstein, Matthew Weiner, etc), but some of them like Richard Dreyfuss, Kevin Spacey, George Takei, James Woods (who apparently was knowingly hitting on two 16 year olds), and frankly Roy Moore (not that I didn’t already think he was a HP) came as a complete shock to me when I learned about them.  Out of curiosity, is there anything about the actual accuser or his accusation that makes you skeptical?  

And I don’t really see what the timing has to do with any of this.  Victims often don’t come forward b/c they’re ashamed, afraid no one will believe them, that people in positions of power will be able to ruin their [the victim’s] lives by digging up every bad thing they’ve ever done, and that it will turn the victim’s life (and their family’s lives) upside down.  When someone as powerful as Harvey Weinstein went down that quickly with such a vast outpouring of support for his victims, I think it gave hope to victims of other sex predators and showed that they aren’t alone.  As more and more sex predators are exposed, one would logically expect more people to come forward.  Obviously I agree though that these should all be viewed on a case-by-case basis.  For example, the accusation against Jeffrey Tambor may or may not be true, but I’m certainly far more skeptical of it than I am of the one against Matthew Weiner.

On a different note, one thing that’s really bothered me is that there hasn’t been a similar movement to condemn folks like Bill Murray, Christian Slater, Terrence Howard, Sean Penn, Mel Gibson, Johnny Depp, Sean Connery, Gary Oldman, etc who appear to have been given a pass by Hollywood for their histories of violence against women.  Before anyone says Gibson’s career took a hit, the man was just nominated for an Oscar and I wonder whether the industry backlash against him wasn’t really just people being angry about his well-known anti-Semitism.

Why? I'm not saying that the claims shouldn't be investigated, but what exactly makes you draw that conclusion? One man's word? That is literally all you need?

I mean, would you believe me if I said I was brutally anally raped by a dildo wielding Lois Frankel at the age of 9? Frankly that doesn't seem rational.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Celebi]

Just as with Moore, this needs to be seriously investigated.

Unlike Moore, Takei is not in (or running to be in) a probable position to impact our government.  What employer would hire someone for a job who is under investigation for being a pedophile or sexual harasser?  Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely, but eligible for holding a serious impact on the way our country governs, potentially the way it governs these very types of issues?  Yea, no.  Not until the accusations are shown to be false.

Here's a question with Moore:   All but one of the allegations were made by folks who where the age of consent at the time of the action.  The allegations involve folks that are 16 and up are, essentially, acts of consent that folks came to regret and see in a different light years later; they were, arguably, not crimes.  Even the act with the 14 year old (assuming it's true and assuming she was under 16 at the time) is covered beyond the Statute of Limitations.  None of this makes it right or savory, but if it's not a prosecuteable crime, who will be doing the "investigating", and to what end?

Voters can make up their own mind about Moore, politically and personally.  Individuals can pursue civil suits, hire their own private investigators, etc. (assuming Moore is still vulnerable to civil liability).  Who is going to do the investigating, and what will they be investigating?  Even unsavory folks don't just automatically deserve to be "under investigation" by a governmental entity when there are no criminal charges the subject being investigated is liable for.

Just out of curiosity, would you vote for a 30 year old man who had sex with multiple girls who were 16 years old?

I'm not asking about age of consent or the legality of it; I want your personal feelings on whether or not a man 30+ years old who has sexual relations with 16 year olds is fit to serve in public office, with influence over the laws which govern us all?

As a foreigner I find this American obsession with private life of politicians really weird. Why should I care whether politician cheats on his wife, goes to swingers parties or sleeps with prostitutes? It is completely irrelevant to his job. If it is legal then it is his private thing and the only thing that is relevant are his stances on the issues.
I live in a country where half of the prime ministers and presidents either cheated on their wives, got divorced or had secret non-marital kids without affecting it their political careers at all. Not so long ago five times married leader of the conservative party in my country publicly cheated on his wife with fifty years younger almost-prostitute and nobody seemed to care in the slightest.

[kyc0705]

George Takei has led a pretty squeaky clean life by Hollywood standards. Another case of suspect timing.

Kevin Spacey [...] came as a complete shock to me when I learned about them.

I will say that Spacey, for many years, had been the subject of rumors that he had always had... little respect for boundaries, let's say. It wasn't as well known as the whispers about Harvey Weinstein, Louis C.K., etc., but he certainly wasn't thought of as a saint.

This establishes the main commonality with all of those who have seen their careers vanish overnight. Almost all of the accused had stories circulate against them, which is part of the reason that the industry was so quick to drop them—there had been a very public acknowledgement of these rumors, and they now seemed more substantiated than ever before.