News Lasseter taking leave of absence

[the.dreamfinder]

Bryan Singer fired from “Bohemian Rhapsody”. So I guess the other shoe’s about to drop?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...ired-directing-queen-biopic-set-chaos-1063977

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

^^ I hope so.

 

[SorcererMC]

Actions like the ones taken by Disney leadership is why most ordinary americans loathe corporate leaders because of this kind of craven behavior, IF corporate leaders stood up and OWNED bad behavior they would be held in a lot higher regard then they are.

Yes, let's talk about Disney leadership and corporate governance for a moment, how and why this scandal could become much larger than the John Lasseter headlines - because media is dancing around this issue (what Iger knew and why it matters). JL was 'chief creative officer'. For sexual harassment claims, when an accused employee is of sufficiently high rank, the employer has no affirmative defense (this means that the employer can automatically be found vicariously liable whether or not their preventive harassment policies are adequate or whether or not JL took advantage of training).

Since we know from media reports that there was a prior settlement - the question becomes, not only how Iger may have failed to address JL's behavior, but what level of risk to the company was CEO Iger assuming by keeping JL on (for years)? Was it disclosed to the Board (or an internal committee), and did they find that level of risk questionable, or acceptable?
If leadership failed in proper disclosure and oversight, shareholders can make a derivative claim to any sexual harassment claims, (eg see Fox's $90 Mln settlement).

ETA: So I see you guys are talking about this in the CEO Chapek thread....

 

[flynnibus]

+1 for Amos reference!


Anyway... with regard to the idea that "they're just accusations therefore we can't say whether they're guilty or not guilty"... No. And that's because there are different fora of guilt: criminal conviction; lawsuit; adjucating bodies; individuals; public opinion.

Take, for example, someone who is tried for a crime and found not guilty. But then they're sued by the victim's family for damages, and a jury finds the accused guilty and awards the damages. So, was that person guilty?

What if a person is found guilty, but, after the verdict, it was discovered that the evidence was tainted by prosecutorial mishandling and is thrown out and the verdict overturned? Well, we know the person is guilty when we used the proof when it was allowed, but, now that it wasn't allowed... is the person not guilty? No, they are indeed guilty, but, the technicality means the state can't get a conviction.

What if the person is so very clearly guilty, but the statute of limitations runs out and therefore can't be indicted let alone convicted? By the criminal code, that person is innocent. And if the person publicly confesses? Still innocent technically because of the statute of limitations.

What if the person settles with their victims out of court? In many cases like that, the DA won't pursue an indictment precisely because the matter was 'settled' privately. Innocent? Almost always not.

Congress isn't a court of law, and yet it can determine if a member violates their own ethical rules and sanction them, even expel them, all without a criminal conviction.

And in the same manner a company or an individual employer can determine if an employ stole for them, or harassed other employees and fire them without a criminal conviction.

People who have been punished or fired or sanctioned in some way unfairly can always sue for damages.... but if they're really guilty they almost never do because they'll lose.

There are different types of guilt. The lack of guilt proven by a criminal conviction doesn't mean they're innocent, except legally. Private institutions, corporations, and individuals do not have to treat someone obviously guilty as innocent like the state does.

If someone privately harasses you, you can avoid them without having a court of law pronouncing them guilty. You don't have to treat someone as innocent when you know better.

Summed up... people judging

The problem with that is it gets out of control.... like it has now. And that just the accusations can ruin innocent people. Because we all know no one has ever intentionally harmed someone else out of spite or for personal gain. So when it stops being victims who speak up, but those manipulating people... there is little to stop it.

The death of "presumed innocence" is just another major hole punched in the hull of the ship that was our great society...

 

[MisterPenguin]

Summed up... people judging

The problem with that is it gets out of control.... like it has now. And that just the accusations can ruin innocent people. Because we all know no one has ever intentionally harmed someone else out of spite or for personal gain. So when it stops being victims who speak up, but those manipulating people... there is little to stop it.

The death of "presumed innocence" is just another major hole punched in the hull of the ship that was our great society...

You're still confusing the role of the state in judging criminal guilt with other situations in which judgments take place. It's a bit similar to when people confuse the Right of Free Speech with the ability to say anything anywhere at anytime. The constitutional right is just preventing the government from censoring speech. Other institutions can censor as much as they like, and they do. Just like you can't type certain words on this forum. It is not a violation of the "Free Speech" of The Constitution.

In the same way, making judgments about people's guilt can happen by individuals and corporations and is not prohibited by "innocent until proven guilty" of the legal system. If you see an employee stealing from your business on surveillance footage, you can fire them for stealing. And if they say that they are "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", you can laugh in their face as you give them their pink slip.

Now, should people jump to conclusions without significant and proper evidence? Of course not. Should you fire someone because you think they're the ones that stole the missing inventory without any evidence? Of course not.

The court system has a high a strict bar for guilt because the consequences are so high. And even then they get things wrong at times. Or can't pursue someone obviously guilty (as when the statutes of limitations run out on someone who admitted guilt).

When news sources that have ordinary journalistic standards (i.e., they fire people who make stuff up) report these allegations, they do the kind of work a prosecutor does and interview people for corroborating evidence. For some of these harassment offenders, they have accusers who are corroborated by a lot more people who were told of the incidents at the time they happen. So, unless all these women conspired with each other over the decades to lie to their family and friends about being molested and kept their connections with one another totally secret... then those perpetrators are guilty. You don't need a court of law for that. In fact, quite a few of them are being eyed by DAs...

When you only get one or two allegations that have no corroboration, then, judgment should be withheld.

 

[flynnibus]

You're still confusing the role of the state in judging criminal guilt with other situations in which judgments take place

No, I'm not confusing them at all. I'm intentionally using the morals and ideals that predicated the ideas that were codified into the constitution. The ideas didn't START with the constitution, they were principles they felt strongly enough that it was essential to included language to ensure government would not impose upon them. The principles were not purely arbitrary political ideals - they were social constructs they felt essential to the new environment they were trying to create.

In the same way, making judgments about people's guilt can happen by individuals and corporations and is not prohibited by "innocent until proven guilty" of the legal system. If you see an employee stealing from your business on surveillance footage, you can fire them for stealing. And if they say that they are "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", you can laugh in their face as you give them their pink slip.

You will notice none of my post was referring to procecution or legal definitions. It was referring to JUDGEMENT and people's eagerness to pass judgement vs having the self control to hold back. It's much like people sharing stuff online without any thought to accuracy or vetting... it has become more gratifying to people in our society to quickly echo, share, and pile on... with almost zero thought of consequence or how it reflects upon themselves. People prey on these mannerisms to further their own agendas and messages now.

The court system has a high a strict bar for guilt because the consequences are so high. And even then they get things wrong at times. Or can't pursue someone obviously guilty (as when the statutes of limitations run out on someone who admitted guilt).

And really it should be the social judgement that should have HIGHER standards... because in the criminal system there are at least protections and definitions that can be relied up, to use in both defense and procescution. In the court of public opinion... there is no checks and balances to fight back against mistakes or simply falsehoods. Instead of people being skeptical of unsourced things.. instead they are even more eager to draw conclusions and press forward with actions based upon them.

When you only get one or two allegations that have no corroboration, then, judgment should be withheld.

While I get what you are saying.. what is effectively 'probability'... aka what is the probability of all these stories being exaggerations or fabrications... simply the metric of 'quantity' in itself is a weak one. For the very same reason seeing something printed multiple times in itself doesn't make it more credible. It's more about multiple INDEPENDENT sources that independently corroborate things where the probability increases.

But even with that... details matter. Because in the rush to judgement world we live in now... definitions and what is included in something or not is stretched and manipulated to such extremes to help stroke emotions, or try to hook people by extending the topic to be labeled something the audience is more likely to be against.

For instance, lets say a guy is found with photos of a teenager on his phone... today's social push may immediately label the guy a pediophile or child molester because its easier to hook someone with such serious terms or labels that may fuel such emotion... vs considering what those terms really project about the guy's suspected crimes or actions.

This rush to judgement and the psychological games people play to rally people to a position... is a cycle that just makes it even EASIER to manipulate people and risk destroying each other over what could be even minor things or even misunderstandings.

A court room may throw out a charge... but you can't reverse people's exposures to stories, labels, etc. Alas it's far easier to hate and throw fuel on the fire these days then to actually think about what you are doing.

 

[Pixieish]

No, I'm not confusing them at all. I'm intentionally using the morals and ideals that predicated the ideas that were codified into the constitution. The ideas didn't START with the constitution, they were principles they felt strongly enough that it was essential to included language to ensure government would not impose upon them. The principles were not purely arbitrary political ideals - they were social constructs they felt essential to the new environment they were trying to create.



You will notice none of my post was referring to procecution or legal definitions. It was referring to JUDGEMENT and people's eagerness to pass judgement vs having the self control to hold back. It's much like people sharing stuff online without any thought to accuracy or vetting... it has become more gratifying to people in our society to quickly echo, share, and pile on... with almost zero thought of consequence or how it reflects upon themselves. People prey on these mannerisms to further their own agendas and messages now.



And really it should be the social judgement that should have HIGHER standards... because in the criminal system there are at least protections and definitions that can be relied up, to use in both defense and procescution. In the court of public opinion... there is no checks and balances to fight back against mistakes or simply falsehoods. Instead of people being skeptical of unsourced things.. instead they are even more eager to draw conclusions and press forward with actions based upon them.



While I get what you are saying.. what is effectively 'probability'... aka what is the probability of all these stories being exaggerations or fabrications... simply the metric of 'quantity' in itself is a weak one. For the very same reason seeing something printed multiple times in itself doesn't make it more credible. It's more about multiple INDEPENDENT sources that independently corroborate things where the probability increases.

But even with that... details matter. Because in the rush to judgement world we live in now... definitions and what is included in something or not is stretched and manipulated to such extremes to help stroke emotions, or try to hook people by extending the topic to be labeled something the audience is more likely to be against.

For instance, lets say a guy is found with photos of a teenager on his phone... today's social push may immediately label the guy a pediophile or child molester because its easier to hook someone with such serious terms or labels that may fuel such emotion... vs considering what those terms really project about the guy's suspected crimes or actions.

This rush to judgement and the psychological games people play to rally people to a position... is a cycle that just makes it even EASIER to manipulate people and risk destroying each other over what could be even minor things or even misunderstandings.

A court room may throw out a charge... but you can't reverse people's exposures to stories, labels, etc. Alas it's far easier to hate and throw fuel on the fire these days then to actually think about what you are doing.

Our brains make snap judgements simply by design - in fact, in the early days of humans, they had to in order for us to survive. Today, they have to strictly based on the amount of data they process at any one given moment. The difference we're seeing between today and say 40 years ago is that today people have no shame in sharing those snap judgments, and because of social media they spread all the more quickly. Add to this the mass media's desire to get the story out first, and people's need for attention being easily met by sharing things on social media, and you've got a recipe for disaster that can ruin people's lives.

 

[celluloid]

Those are all valid points by all and it is a great thing that is healthy to ponder, and why it should be a case by case basis in terms of a Court of Law but back to this subject of the individual in this particular company this thread is about, even if you do not read the more extreme claims and examples and we presume those may or may not be true, John Lasseter admitted to "missteps" that are under company policy considered Sexual Harassment weather he or any published memo calls them that or not. Until someone takes him to Court, it is fine to call him guilty of what the person himself admitted to doing.

Innocent people who have nothing to hide do not take a leave like that with those words specifically citing examples of inappropriate behavior that is against company policy and most people would be fired for such behavior at any workplace with any sort of Sexual Harassment policy in place. Also think about Disney, and how sharp and protective they are, you know it had to be something substantial and investigated for them to either strongly suggest he write a memo first before things got out or he felt compelled to make the claims not sound as shocking.
And even the legal system can be confusing at times. The best Law Professor I ever had reminded that when you are read your Miranda rights

 

[the.dreamfinder]

The death of "presumed innocence" is just another major hole punched in the hull of the ship that was our great society...

So it was ok when our “great society” would allow millions of children to be molested/raped by catholic clergy and looked the other way? Or the rape kits that went years without being tested? Or system that allows a judge to give a rapist like Brock Turner a criminally short sentence because ‘he’s a good (white, upper middle class) kid’?

This current moment has been caused by the failure of society and the legal system to bring prepatrators of sexual violence to justice through due process. A backlash, if you will. Decades of mounting anger because victims weren’t listened to and law enforcement and the judicial system didn’t understand how to pursue these cases. Treat the disease and the symptoms will subside over time.

A great society tackles the problems it faces head on. It listens and believes the victims, but also relies on thorough scrutiny applied to any piece of journalism, see Washington Post’s report on the false rape accusation against Roy Moore, or court of law.

 

[ford91exploder]

Summed up... people judging

The problem with that is it gets out of control.... like it has now. And that just the accusations can ruin innocent people. Because we all know no one has ever intentionally harmed someone else out of spite or for personal gain. So when it stops being victims who speak up, but those manipulating people... there is little to stop it.

The death of "presumed innocence" is just another major hole punched in the hull of the ship that was our great society...

Well 'presumed innocent' went the way of the Dodo bird when 'Politicians with a byline' found that 'Trial by Press' was a useful tool in knocking off people not allied to their political club and as a tool for political activism. Brawley in NYC, Duke Lacrosse team, Rolling Stone's 'Rape Culture' all of those things did SIGNIFICANT damage to the believeability of accusers.

As many of of the falsely accused victims of this process say 'How do I get my reputation back'

We may need to modify our system of law so that criminal proceedings are under seal until complete to protect the rights of the accuser and the accused.

With mandatory civil and criminal sanctions for those that break the seal.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

We may need to modify our system of law so that criminal proceedings are under seal until complete to protect the rights of the accuser and the accused.

With mandatory civil and criminal sanctions for those that break the seal

Like that couldn’t be abused at all. That’s what colleges and universities have done to self regulate sexual misconduct on their campuses as well as the US HoR. How’s that worked out?

 

[bclane]

IMHO...

Unfortunately there is no perfect solution to what is an enormous problem. Victims must always be believed and supported but at the same time the claims must always be thoroughly and fairly investigated. Obviously reconciling these two things is incredibly difficult in real life. But when the claims appear to be even remotely credible, we must ensure that the accused are prevented from hurting anyone else while the investigation is ongoing. This unfortunately means consequences such as removal from a position, etc...temporarily if innocence is proven and permanently if found guilty, along with whatever penalties are applied by the courts. However, I also think there needs to be MUCH stiffer penalties for making false claims as that does happen from time to time and further, as a society, we need to do better at fully restoring a person if they are found to be innocent. No way this is ever going to be easy or error free, but it is necessary, imo.

 

[ford91exploder]

Like that couldn’t be abused at all. That’s what colleges and universities have done to self regulate sexual misconduct on their campuses as well as the US HoR. How’s that worked out?

University processes have no rules of evidence and are generally designed to PROTECT THE UNIVERSITY from negative publicity. And far too often the processes are 'star chamber' like where the defendant is presumed gulty.

Big difference from what I'm proposing which is conducting a criminal proceeding under seal with identities of victim and defendant suppressed until conclusion of the trial or plea bargain.

In the event of a unfounded or innocent verdict the process remains under seal,

In the event of a guilty plea/verdict everything becomes part of the public record including video records of the trial.

A system like this prevents the attorneys from trying the case in the press and preserves the rights of the victim and defendant. And under a system like this there is no real need to disclose the victim's identity

Im concerned with preserving everyones rights, not the current system where human suffering is sold as entertainment.

 

[ford91exploder]

Those are all valid points by all and it is a great thing that is healthy to ponder, and why it should be a case by case basis in terms of a Court of Law but back to this subject of the individual in this particular company this thread is about, even if you do not read the more extreme claims and examples and we presume those may or may not be true, John Lasseter admitted to "missteps" that are under company policy considered Sexual Harassment weather he or any published memo calls them that or not. Until someone takes him to Court, it is fine to call him guilty of what the person himself admitted to doing.

Innocent people who have nothing to hide do not take a leave like that with those words specifically citing examples of inappropriate behavior that is against company policy and most people would be fired for such behavior at any workplace with any sort of Sexual Harassment policy in place. Also think about Disney, and how sharp and protective they are, you know it had to be something substantial and investigated for them to either strongly suggest he right a memo first before things got out or he felt compelled to make the claims not sound as shocking.
And even the legal system can be confusing at times. The best Law Professor I ever had reminded that when you are read your Miranda rights

What happened to the so called accuser in the WaPo Were they arrested and charged with perjury? If not why?

Because Moore is seen as a loon its ok to falsely accuse him???.

Thats worthy of the old Soviet Union and precisely the issue at hand as to why accusations are frequently not taken seriously because there are no consequences for false ones.

 

[larryz]

No, I'm not confusing them at all. I'm intentionally using the morals and ideals that predicated the ideas that were codified into the constitution. The ideas didn't START with the constitution, they were principles they felt strongly enough that it was essential to included language to ensure government would not impose upon them. The principles were not purely arbitrary political ideals - they were social constructs they felt essential to the new environment they were trying to create.

When the education system stopped teaching to learn and started teaching to pass tests, they cut out instruction on the social contract.

You will notice none of my post was referring to prosecution or legal definitions. It was referring to JUDGEMENT and people's eagerness to pass judgement vs having the self control to hold back. It's much like people sharing stuff online without any thought to accuracy or vetting... it has become more gratifying to people in our society to quickly echo, share, and pile on... with almost zero thought of consequence or how it reflects upon themselves. People prey on these mannerisms to further their own agendas and messages now.

Thoughts once expressed in private between/among family members and close friends are now shared openly with total strangers -- see my comment on the social contract above.

And really it should be the social judgement that should have HIGHER standards... because in the criminal system there are at least protections and definitions that can be relied up, to use in both defense and procescution. In the court of public opinion... there is no checks and balances to fight back against mistakes or simply falsehoods. Instead of people being skeptical of unsourced things.. instead they are even more eager to draw conclusions and press forward with actions based upon them.

Outrage is the new comity.

While I get what you are saying.. what is effectively 'probability'... aka what is the probability of all these stories being exaggerations or fabrications... simply the metric of 'quantity' in itself is a weak one. For the very same reason seeing something printed multiple times in itself doesn't make it more credible. It's more about multiple INDEPENDENT sources that independently corroborate things where the probability increases.

Unfortunately, in today's climate, independence is seen as opposition.

But even with that... details matter. Because in the rush to judgement world we live in now... definitions and what is included in something or not is stretched and manipulated to such extremes to help stroke emotions, or try to hook people by extending the topic to be labeled something the audience is more likely to be against.

Controversy sells. Blame the media and the 24-hour news cycle.

For instance, lets say a guy is found with photos of a teenager on his phone... today's social push may immediately label the guy a pediophile or child molester because its easier to hook someone with such serious terms or labels that may fuel such emotion... vs considering what those terms really project about the guy's suspected crimes or actions.

There's a fair amount of projection in those rushes to judgment...

This rush to judgement and the psychological games people play to rally people to a position... is a cycle that just makes it even EASIER to manipulate people and risk destroying each other over what could be even minor things or even misunderstandings.

While they were busy teaching kids how to pass tests, the schools forgot to teach them to think critically.

A court room may throw out a charge... but you can't reverse people's exposures to stories, labels, etc. Alas it's far easier to hate and throw fuel on the fire these days then to actually think about what you are doing.

When the big awakening comes, there will be lots of very embarrassed people. It reminds me of the neighborhood in The Twilight Zone episode about the "alien invasion" the aliens started the rumor about... most of the people ganged up on one person until they found out they weren't an alien, then they slinked back into their homes.

 

[flynnibus]

So it was ok when our “great society” would allow millions of children to be molested/raped by catholic clergy and looked the other way? Or the rape kits that went years without being tested? Or system that allows a judge to give a rapist like Brock Turner a criminally short sentence because ‘he’s a good (white, upper middle class) kid’?

Thanks for the textbook 'false equivalency'. The discussion about judgement was not about giving a pass to sexual predators or people failing to follow-through with an impact. In fact, the premises have nothing to do with one another. Yours is a discussion of complacency, or minimizing the impact/consequence of these kinds of actions - mine was not about a specific crime, but about people rushing to conclusions without the interest or awareness to ensure they actually understand before judging.

But thanks for demonstrating the tactics I mentioned before where people take an emotional charged topic, try to make it part of the discussion and make a strawman out of it... with "why wouldn't you be against this??" type of retort.

This current moment has been caused by the failure of society and the legal system to bring prepatrators of sexual violence to justice through due process. A backlash, if you will. Decades of mounting anger because victims weren’t listened to and law enforcement and the judicial system didn’t understand how to pursue these cases

So you are saying the means justify the ends? It's that kind of "screw the law, we have our own solution..." justification that would justify Lynch Mobs or vigilantes as valid and justified too.

Let's be real... these companies are not reacting so quickly and swiftly in a new found interest in protecting the victims. They are over pivoting in a response to FEAR of greater consequences of being labeled complacent or involved by the mob and the civil liabilities the lawsuits bring. It is FAR FAR easier for a company to just burn a handful of people as a sacrifice than it is to fight the uphill battle. Doing so also placates the mob... because they aren't interested in the CORRECT outcome, they are easily satisfied with an outcome that aligns with their emotional fire.

So company loses an asset... but swift action is a 'win win' for the public's perception of the company because it shows 'punishment' and prejudice against that kind of behavior. The mob who is fueled by emotion... could care less if the move was justified or proper... just seeing it done is a 'victory' in their eyes. Because it's all about emotions and not really about accuracy/logic... the companies can never win using the path of diligence... because facts and logic do not matter in emotional debates. So they only stand to lose more... making it far less painful to just cut and run... vs really getting into the issues.

It's simply cleaner to 'give in quickly' than it is to fight. It's more of the same problem in a different shape.. the issue that noise is more powerful than logic.

A great society tackles the problems it faces head on. It listens and believes the victims, but also relies on thorough scrutiny applied to any piece of journalism, see Washington Post’s report on the false rape accusation against Roy Moore, or court of law.

Well when people don't scrutinize... and instead... rush to judge... (which is exactly what my first post was)... you are in this kind of tailspin. You're saying what I did... the great society should scrutinize and listen to all parties... not just run with the feel good bait being danced in front of your eyes everywhere you look.

 

[Whatsthegoodword]

LOL at this thread. Will y'all tackle cold fusion next please?

 

[Nubs70]

Thanks for the textbook 'false equivalency'. The discussion about judgement was not about giving a pass to sexual predators or people failing to follow-through with an impact. In fact, the premises have nothing to do with one another. Yours is a discussion of complacency, or minimizing the impact/consequence of these kinds of actions - mine was not about a specific crime, but about people rushing to conclusions without the interest or awareness to ensure they actually understand before judging.

But thanks for demonstrating the tactics I mentioned before where people take an emotional charged topic, try to make it part of the discussion and make a strawman out of it... with "why wouldn't you be against this??" type of retort.



So you are saying the means justify the ends? It's that kind of "screw the law, we have our own solution..." justification that would justify Lynch Mobs or vigilantes as valid and justified too.

Let's be real... these companies are not reacting so quickly and swiftly in a new found interest in protecting the victims. They are over pivoting in a response to FEAR of greater consequences of being labeled complacent or involved by the mob and the civil liabilities the lawsuits bring. It is FAR FAR easier for a company to just burn a handful of people as a sacrifice than it is to fight the uphill battle. Doing so also placates the mob... because they aren't interested in the CORRECT outcome, they are easily satisfied with an outcome that aligns with their emotional fire.

So company loses an asset... but swift action is a 'win win' for the public's perception of the company because it shows 'punishment' and prejudice against that kind of behavior. The mob who is fueled by emotion... could care less if the move was justified or proper... just seeing it done is a 'victory' in their eyes. Because it's all about emotions and not really about accuracy/logic... the companies can never win using the path of diligence... because facts and logic do not matter in emotional debates. So they only stand to lose more... making it far less painful to just cut and run... vs really getting into the issues.

It's simply cleaner to 'give in quickly' than it is to fight. It's more of the same problem in a different shape.. the issue that noise is more powerful than logic.




Well when people don't scrutinize... and instead... rush to judge... (which is exactly what my first post was)... you are in this kind of tailspin. You're saying what I did... the great society should scrutinize and listen to all parties... not just run with the feel good bait being danced in front of your eyes everywhere you look.

My favorite justification is "Yes, but at least we did something"

But was that something correct?

 

[ford91exploder]

My favorite justification is "Yes, but at least we did something"

But was that something correct?

Its all about the optics of 'doing something' appropriateness of action is not even included in that calculus.

 

[matt9112]

I think it goes back much further than that.

like hundreds of years further