Free Kesha

High IQ ? Seriously is that a thing here , i get from the answers here that you are all very eloquent and outspoken what i do miss however is emphathy and objectivity , i will wait how this case developes before i can give an logical and slightly intelligent answer ..my IQ is not so high , i completely hinge on my EQ :silly:

Wow, this topic really took a lot more traction than I expected.
I just ask that everyone remain civil and calm. Much of the inspiration for this topic was how people become emotionally attached to cases like this.

Let me start with this point: In no world would I assume anyone here would condone rape.

Beyond that, I ask that you review the whole case and assume innocence on the preponderance of evidence. I understand if you are from a country with a legal system different from the states, and are biased to handle judicial matters similarly to your modus operandi.
Many people see this as a closed case in their minds (on both ends) and refuse to look further, I simply ask that you understand your own biases before trying to explain your views. Justice is objective, there is no room for someone feeling that Western Society is patriarchial to decide that a defendant can be convicted before he has been amply defended against a musician who already has formidable financial assets and an equally strong financial motivation for success.

*Disclaimer: personal opinion*
Don't donate money to either side. They're both rich beyond your comprehension, and see this likely as a matter of winning the lucrative remainder of Kesha's contract.
This isn't a criminal trial, so our defendant Luke isn't even being accused of rape.
The setting, intent, and means are ample for Kesha to try and exploit this chance to re-write her exploitive contract (lets face it, she was a starving artist who sold her fiscal future at a shot at the big leagues... and made it). But she made her choice and seems like she just can't handle the obligation now that she's tasted success.
*resume objectivity*

Stop using personal insults or character judgements, that's not how this works
-
fin.

Carli wrote: ...believe the wounded side until proven otherwise...

So, you believe in guilty until proven innocent? Mind you, they are simply allegations until evidence proves them to be facts.

Luthien wrote:

Carli wrote: ...believe the wounded side until proven otherwise...

So, you believe in guilty until proven innocent? Mind you, they are simply allegations until evidence proves them to be facts.

I'm not sure we have to prove Dr. Luke's guilt to have the decency to remove Kesha from a situation which makes her feel unsafe. This wasn't a case of Dr. Luke being on trial and while the outcome of the trial could have led to the State Attorney's Office prosecuting, that would be a separate case. If even a shred of what Kesha claims is true then demanding that she continue to work with Dr. Luke or suffer the consequences of breaking her contract is unjust.

What I'm saying is that while I personally believe Dr. Luke is guilty, it is not necessary for him to be proven guilty for us to agree that Kesha should have been allowed to either leave her contract or be assigned a different producer with a no-contact order between Dr. Luke and Kesha.

Perhaps the middle ground of a situation where no admissible evidence exists, is that a neutral 3rd party accompany the claimant during all contracted business in his presence, paid for equally by both parties to the contract.

It is not an attractive proposal for either party, having to pay for this, so it avoids abuse (people making false accusations and people trying to get away with workplace harassment) of the courts and the law in this regard. So it would only be called upon by request to the Courts etc, but obviously assumes both parties could pay. It might work in this case since they are uber rich.

This would allow the witness to quite literally witness any future incident, which should in most cases stop it happening (providing a safe workplace), and still be able to produce work which meets the needs of the contractual obligations. If the harassment continues, then it can go back to Court and the victim can have grounds for the Judge to not only break the contract but perhaps pursue legal action against the perpetrator too. It should in theory entirely eliminate the practice of lying about harassment in the workplace just to get out of it, provided the witness is able to the job properly.

Maybe its a good Jedi job, impartial, observant etc :side:

Jamie Stick wrote: ...Kesha should have been allowed to either leave her contract or be assigned a different producer with a no-contact order between Dr. Luke and Kesha.

This, I can wholeheartedly agree on. Though, the judge did say that she could produce her music without Dr. Luke present. Or, did I read it wrong?

Yes, although Dr. Luke is currently innocent, and Sony retained their contract with Kesha (a separate matter that was dragged into this), the two have parted ways. Weirdly enough, most people are unhappy with that: either because it tends to assume his guilt (for those in the innocent party), or because it doesn't have any kind of reparations on his part to Kesha (for the conviction inclined). Do you think this was the right decision: a lose-lose compromise?
Sony is the only real winner here (as far as I can tell).

Rex wrote: Yes, although Dr. Luke is currently innocent, and Sony retained their contract with Kesha (a separate matter that was dragged into this), the two have parted ways. Weirdly enough, most people are unhappy with that: either because it tends to assume his guilt (for those in the innocent party), or because it doesn't have any kind of reparations on his part to Kesha (for the conviction inclined). Do you think this was the right decision: a lose-lose compromise?
Sony is the only real winner here (as far as I can tell).

I'm not in either party (innocent- vs guilty-inclined) because I'm not part of any of the process, but I would hope the evidence can speak for itself. If there is no evidence, then the justice system has no reason to convict or hold the charges/allegations to be true. Justice, officially, cannot be done through emotional strings; it must be done in the strictest, objectively executed process. I feel very strongly against rape (as should any reasonable person), but my feelings about it and rapists cannot cloud my judgment, else I would be using bias to carry it out.