Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
I haven't seen anyone suggest Ghomeshi should get his career in broadcasting back. The controversy is over whether the New York Times should have run a column by him. So should everyone charged with a violent crime - even if they're acquitted - be no-platformed from all media? How about Ansari and CK, neither of whom were charged with anything or committed violence against women, getting back on stage? What about Hardwick, who was cleared to return to work after an internal investigation?
This is the problem with treating Ghomeshi, Crosby, Weinstein, Spacey, Keillor, Ansari, CK, and Hardwick the same. Each case is different. But unlike the law, the social media mob doesn't do context or proportionality.
|
I'll share my views
- I don't necessarily mind the NYT running a column by him as I think part of the dying role of the media is to show different perspectives. In this case I also think it allows the public to see more of who he actually is, and it is ugly
- Louis CK never put a hand on someone, in a violent way, that we know of, however he did in some cases prevent someone from leaving when they wanted to? Is this violence in a strict definition? I suppose not. But if you prevent someone from leaving a room so you can perform a sexual act in front of them, it certainly is something close to it
- Hardwick had a single accuser. I don't think we know enough to say what happened when it is a singular he said/she said thing
- I'm not as faimilar with Ansari's case so I wont' offer comment
The social media mob isn't a singular entity and to describe them as such is arrogant in my view. Everyone arrives at their own views and different people spend more or less time to arrive at this views.