Woody Allen

[jenkins]

Even people who give Woody the benefit of the doubt and defend him on the internet are often confused on a few points. Some mistakenly say that the court found him "not guilty" of the molestation charges. The fact is there was never such a ruling because he was never charged with a crime, since investigative authorities never found credible evidence to support Mia's (and Dylan's) claim.

[ono]

and also:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

I want to reiterate Alexandro's posting of this link because it's a very well-written article which goes a long way towards explaining what went down and trying to -- well, not so much vindicate -- as defend Woody.

[jenkins]

reiterate means to say again, like if you quoted the article, like how there's a quote right above you from the article. fml

[ono]

Yes, well, I came across that article from a totally different source, then came back here to see if the link was in the thread.  Saw it was, gave Alexandro credit, and replied saying such.  Excuse me for not reading your quote in which you didn't add anything more to the thread.  Links without context often get ignored without explaining why they're relevant.  The article IS relevant because it goes into a lot of detail about assumptions people make about Woody and his relations to those women.  Woody doesn't defend himself, barely knows how to use a computer, so it is worth pointing that out.  SMH.

Fuck YOUR life?  Please.  I want those 15 seconds back in which I had to explain that!

[jenkins]

thank you for explaining how late to the conversation you are

[xerxes]

The tone of that article is pretty gross, so I'm gonna post this one to even things out a bit:

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/six-reasons-dylan-farrow-highly-credible.html?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_campaign=hootsuite

[Neil]

I'm not trying to echo the thoughts of others here (el panda specifically), or stir up the shit-pot, but things like this cause more problems than they're worth. It has the potential of leading some to believe that these kinds of write-ups belong in the same realm as the real life justice system; and NO this has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. As a grad in Communications,  I know plenty about the benefactors that come with 'Freedom of the Press,' but it does have its drawbacks, just like everything else in this world. Specifically in our case, it seems that a difficulty lies within differing definitions of, "the press," and exactly how much freedom they should have, and who should decide this.

I'd give Ed Murrow plenty of freedom as a Journalist, but that's another discussion. With this being said, if you're unable to tell which areas are more editorial than others in the link that Alexandro shared with us, I'm sure someone will point those out.

There are no "evening things out" either, that's the problem.  This information shouldn't sway us one way or the other. Those of us living in the states endorse the justice system here, so why shit all over it? Innocent until proven guilty.  That doesn't mean read all the blogs you can find and try to make up your mind, or find the best representation of both sides of the issue. Leave it to the professionals, because I highly doubt that you or any of the folks that wrote the articles which are linked up earlier in this thread will ever find themselves taking the stand for questioning in court. 

Sure, you're free to speculate, and yes you're free to think whatever you want, and it's ALL SO INTERESTING, but as far as the justice system I participate in is concerned, all you're doing is pissing in the wind with your speculation. Especially if you're just gonna look the other way at what transpired regarding these allegations, which led to an investigation that took place years ago (which no one wants to raise a fuss about or attempt to bring up other than the "gross" article).  I'm not saying court systems don't fail, but that's really not what we're talking about here.  What we are talking about here is how detrimental it can be when you volunteer yourself as a member of the judge jury and executioner.
We could all use a little growin' up, and no matter whose side you think you're on, you should know that you're not really on either, because you don't know shit about it.

[jenkins]

no matter whose side you think you're on, you should know that you're not really on either

[Alexandro]

what freaks me out about this whole mess, although I can't say is unexpected, is the amount of self righteousness and hard judgement people have on the internet on a matter whose truth they can't possibly KNOW. any expression of doubt regarding dylan's statement is immediately discarded as claiming woody allen is innocent and dylan is a liar, and as something that sets a bad precedent regarding sexual abuse victims on speaking out. does stating the reasonable fact that there is plenty of reasons woody allen has not been charged or convicted with this crime, plus all the other weird shit that went on with these people, equals getting him off the hook? those are pretty serious accusations and I don't like that you can just accuse someone of something like that without proof trusting that a large group of people will get behind you on a purely emotional basis. this is an old case that, if I've read correctly, was not taken to the courts because mia farrow didn't want to expose her child. but also if I remember correctly, woody allen was furious about this because he felt his name would always be stained with an incomplete accusation. he was the most interested party in going to trial. this one is just one of many instances in this whole thing where there is very reasonable concerns and doubts about who is telling the truth, and the really disturbing stuff is being said on the comments sections of each one of these articles: a lot of hate, a lot of self righteousness, and plenty of anti intellectual, anti science, anti facts, anti artistic expression, anti women, anti men shit being said. ugly all over the place.

[Pubrick]

All I know is I'm definitely not on Jenkins side.

[jenkins]

All I know is I'm definitely not on Jenkins side.

so magical. the one thing we all know to be definite and everlasting

i'll take every hit given to me for not waiting for the court and i'll repeat what i've said: the gossip is high in assaults, the gossip is outta control and villainous, but anyway i can't forget what all this is about. curious about how it'll conclude

[Neil]

[jenkins]

what speculation did i make neil. please tell me

[Axolotl]

Woody Allen is accused of molesting his daughter. It's probably the most horrible crime someone can be accused of and Woody is despicable if this is true. That's probably what everyone else here believes. But there's no harm in withholding judgment until the case is adjudicated by an impartial authority.
I don't get what you're arguing about, jenk.

[jenkins]

well, that's the third post in a row that's directed right at me. but i've been vocal in this thread and driven this toward myself. the thing i'm saying is: it's true i'm not an authority, it's true the people it happened to know more than we do, it's true judgment should be suspended, it's true the accusation immediately spiraled woody allen into malicious gossip, and it's true that outside all this the entire conversation is about possible child molestation and like you said, axolotl, that's probably the most horrible crime someone can be accused of. because i think it's horrible, because i really do, i try not to forget that's the conversation's center. other aspects and their repeated mentioning -- the legal system, veracity, social defamation, prior investigations -- aren't more important to me than the possibility that child molestation occurred. i haven't attempted to inflate criticisms against woody allen, i've attempted to steer the conversation back towards the point. because we're not the legal system, because we understand the legal system, because the worst possible and personal responses against woody allen aren't being broadcasted here at xixax, reminders about the future course of the event, the fair and logical way to reach a resolution, strike me not as neutralizing but neutering. i think everyone here also believes in the legal system, i haven't heard anyone say otherwise. all i've heard is reminders of it amid a conversation about possible molestation. the legal system will hopefully continue to work as best as it can, and that will be wonderful, and molestation will continue to work as it does, and that's horrible. that's all i'm saying

i like you asked me to clarify. i hope i've made myself clear. also, did you notice my commas and have you started seiobo? sure gets those commas going