Free Kesha

In the States, the Judicial system is heavily based on the presumption of innocence.
This system even goes so far to allow the jury to acquit a defendant, knowing that the defendant is guilty, but not wanting to punish them, in a verdict known as Jury Nullification. Once a defendant is acquitted, they cannot be forced to undergo double jeopardy. Even the jury for every case that is resolved in court (about 2%) must be unambigously unbiased, otherwise the attourneys have the power to issue a challenge for cause, and if the juror feels so compelled, they may recuse themselves as well.
All of these techniques, along with Jury sequestration, are meant to allow the Jury full access to the evidence and testimony surrounding a case without outside prejudices or interference.

Starting with the early 90s cases of Rodney King and O.J. Simpson, the media began to cast an influence on popular opinion of a trial. Since most are open to the press, viewers could get a reguritated serving of the evidence and convict or acquit the defendant without the rigour of trial. Social media has only exacerbated this wound, as Jurors can be doxxed, and opinions fly thickest from the least educated, yet most socially savvy dregs of society.

The latest trending hashtag trial has been that of Kesha Sebert, a pop icon that burst into fashion after signing an exclusive record deal with producer Dr. Luke. After 2 platinum albums were released and giving several statements regarding her producer in a positive fashion, she cried out that she had been abused and taken advantage of. Her claims weren't criminal, but only civil; and all she asked for was a release from her contract and damages. Instantly, those who believe the hashtag is mightier than the pen donned their social justice colours and convicted Dr. Luke before the trial's conclusion.
Passionate diatribes against rape, the man, and the music industry pelted anyone who dared say otherwise, these all united under the banner #freekesha
Even the wording of that seems to paint our damsel in distress as the defendant against an evil and faceless entity.

Since I believe that rape is heinous and should in no way be taken lightly, I am astonished that so many have the guts to convict a man for discovering a pop artist, making his American dream, and being acquitted of all charges. In the aftermath, Sony has relented to some of Kesha's demands outside of court, but many still see this as an institutional condonement of rape and exploitation.

I in no way believe that freedom of speech ought to be restricted, I just urge people of conscience to hold their uninformed opinions in and respect the justice system both for its equal opportunity for acquittal and its intimacy with the evidence.
Please critique and respond (objectively)

You are probably required by law to have a safe workplace, which would probably exclude harassment.... but I imagine lots of workplaces don't have the mechanisms or structures available to properly resolve misconduct. So I bet as always, evidence is the big thing, so if its all just hearsay then it becomes a bigger problem for the right thing to be done, and she really might just have to produce some really bad music for the rest of her contract, if she cannot find a way to exit it (whether it happened or not). But I know nothing about it, if she is saying she was raped then it would have been a stronger accusation if she'd reported it immediately after it happened (plus evidence can sometimes be acquired).

I can understand why she wouldn't want to work with him, certainly, but here's my question... Why on EARTH would he want to produce music with someone that accused him of rape, true or not? What kind of person still insists you stay connected to them legally through that? Even if by some stretch he didn't do it, can we say slimeball?

I like that Dr. Luke fought it, but that's not quite enough to put my faith in humanity back in the positive: blithering idiots decided to start a 2 million gofundme campaign for a woman who's in the top what, 0.01% richest people on earth? To "free" her?

Looks like everyday, thousands of years old stuff to me. Privileged woman is led to believe she's not privileged enough, tries to get what she wants from man, excrement ensues.

The spoilered words add nothing to this conversation, except humor...

So, I spoilered it, just in case someone takes it wrong...

On topic, and not as informed as Principus Caelae Gradituri on this matter, I, as a jury should do, refrain from commenting until I am knowledgeable enough to make an intelligent comment...

Snowy Aftermath wrote: I can understand why she wouldn't want to work with him, certainly, but here's my question... Why on EARTH would he want to produce music with someone that accused him of rape, true or not? What kind of person still insists you stay connected to them legally through that? Even if by some stretch he didn't do it, can we say slimeball?

why would he insist on working with her after the accusation?...easy because she makes him lots of money....the creed is greed....

regardless of whether the accusations are valid or not, she is contractually obligated, if she wants the money she has to fulfill the contract. she can just as easily violate the contract and forfeit the money which would get her out of the contract...but then who would give up fame and millions?....

in the end it always seems to come down to money....right or wrong, which pays more?

Jestor wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

ren wrote: excrement ensues.

I want that on a shirt...

so do i..... :lol:

RyuJin wrote:

Snowy Aftermath wrote: I can understand why she wouldn't want to work with him, certainly, but here's my question... Why on EARTH would he want to produce music with someone that accused him of rape, true or not?

easy because she makes him lots of money

Do you know what a rhetorical question is, Ryu? I've noticed you answering them often. Not every question is asked because someone can't figure something out. Sometimes a person is expressing an emotion.

I do not mean this disrespectfully. Perhaps there is a language barrier.

ren wrote: I like that Dr. Luke fought it, but that's not quite enough to put my faith in humanity back in the positive: blithering idiots decided to start a 2 million gofundme campaign for a woman who's in the top what, 0.01% richest people on earth? To "free" her?

Looks like everyday, thousands of years old stuff to me. Privileged woman is led to believe she's not privileged enough, tries to get what she wants from man, excrement ensues.

"Led to believe she's not privileged enough" has nothing to do with it. It sounds like what you're essentially saying is that because she's rich we shouldn't care whether or not she was raped and is now disallowed to pursue her chosen career without working with her alleged rapist. And that disturbs me greatly.

I don't love the way the 0.01% sits in our society any more than the next person. But I am far more concerned, in THIS instance, with the issue at hand: that a woman is testifying that she was raped, and is not able to do what she loves without honoring a contract with her attacker, and all anyone else cares to discuss is whether or not she DESERVES justice. Not IF she was attacked, but if she deserves to get basic justice because she has money.

Rich or not, if that crudball (who in my opinion from everything I've seen is a crudball regardless of whether or not this allegation is true, and I strongly stand with her that it is true) raped her, she should not be forced to choose leaving her career or working with him. In an office situation for the average person, if their boss raped them, we would be outraged if they were presented with the option of: being legally banned from working in such a role again for an impactful amount of time, or riding it out with her rapist boss another year +. Her being richer than you doesn't equal less deserving of justice and a little human compassion.

I'm not donating money to this cause because, guess what, I'm poor. But my being poor doesn't make me incapable of understanding that people who are financially better off than me can still be dealt injustices. I stand politically, and speak out against rape and rape apologists. If others think there's a better way for them to help in this situation, I don't think it's very mature to call them "blithering idiots." Your not agreeing with them is no reason to attack them on a personal level. That's actually a principle at this Temple, I believe: to criticize ideas, not people. Sometimes you might not be aware there are people here that hold the ideas you're attacking, but there may be nonetheless. There could always be someone in the room that you are unknowingly discussing.

Snowy, I think that rhetorical questions are one of those things that just don't translate well to a text environment. I didn't question for a second that someone answered it. But, knowing now that it was meant to be rhetorical I won't answer it.

Carli, that was very well put. Thank you. The analogy of this same situation in a more "standard" office environment was apt, in my opinion. We certainly wouldn't be having this same conversation had it been that.

A few things that also bear note in this situation is that this is not the first time Sony has done this sort of thing, forcing artists to work with them despite being pricks. This is just the first one that involved rape to my knowledge. It should also be noted that other male artists have been allowed out of contracts for simple reasons. What this tells me is that the men are treated as people with rights and the women are treated as cash machines to be owned and used.

Ryu, I do believe that she could easily void the contract by simply refusing to work, but she wouldn't be allowed to work with anyone, ever. She literally can no longer do the thing that she loves more than anything unless she wants to work with her attacker. I don't think for her its about the money. For the Dr. Luke it certainly is though.

One thing I do disagree with is a go fund me campaign for it. She's loaded, she doesn't need my money if money really is what will help, which I don't think it will.