 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2021 - 1:20 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
You are an insect to people like Scarjo, she is not your peer.
I feel like this is more telling than you think.
I don't care if she knows who I am. Frankly, I don't much think of her as an actress. She's just sorta there.
But I do believe she should get whats owed to her. I believe that of everyone. I have no benefit to that, no horse in that race. I just believe in the right thing.
If everything is going to be weighed in personal gains and loss, then we are at an impasse because that has nothing to do with my moral barometer. Her making more money does not benefit or disadvantage me in the slightest. But she did a job and she should get what she's owed. That goes for anyone.
And yes, if I have one slant on this whole conversation, its that I have zero sympathy for corporations on far mountaintops. (Is she a corporation? I'd say no. I get why someone would say that because there are things like branding and PR and big money. But she's still a person unlike, I dunno, Johnson & Johnson or Target or Walmart or Disney or Paramount.)
As to Harlan, while he certainly did things in his life I disagree with, the fact is immutable that in the two points I made
1.) The defendants in both situations would rather pay out than drag it to court (and be more expensive).
2.) The courts agreed with this decision (as it was legally binding)
3.) His lawyer(s) knew the law
Its also very telling that the two links you posted about the AOL findings are overflowing with comments by people saying how the base article is not only wrong but willfully misconstruing the situation to fit an agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2021 - 1:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
You are an insect to people like Scarjo, she is not your peer.
I feel like this is more telling than you think.
I don't care if she knows who I am. Frankly, I don't much think of her as an actress. She's just sorta there.
But I do believe she should get whats owed to her. I believe that of everyone. I have no benefit to that, no horse in that race. I just believe in the right thing.
If everything is going to be weighed in personal gains and loss, then we are at an impasse because that has nothing to do with my moral barometer. Her making more money does not benefit or disadvantage me in the slightest. But she did a job and she should get what she's owed. That goes for anyone.
And yes, if I have one slant on this whole conversation, its that I have zero sympathy for corporations on far mountaintops. (Is she a corporation? I'd say no. I get why someone would say that because there are things like branding and PR and big money. But she's still a person unlike, I dunno, Johnson & Johnson or Target or Walmart or Disney or Paramount.)
As to Harlan, while he certainly did things in his life I disagree with, the fact is immutable that in the two points I made
1.) The defendants in both situations would rather pay out than drag it to court (and be more expensive).
2.) The courts agreed with this decision (as it was legally binding)
3.) His lawyer(s) knew the law
Its also very telling that the two links you posted about the AOL findings are overflowing with comments by people saying how the base article is not only wrong but willfully misconstruing the situation to fit an agenda.
All those Harlan pay outs were Nuisance payouts. You and I both know what that means.
People being paid settlements instead of going to court DOES NOT mean that the plaintiff had a good case.
And those payouts have little to nothing to with 'the law' these are meetings not in court rooms but private rooms, and with checkbooks. It has nothing to do with laws, it has to do with "will you please go away, crazy person"?
Once again, again and again, Scarjo was paid, well paid, and she is still getting paid.
She was paid - again, $20 Million, and is being paid a cut of Disney+ fees.
I guess you can keep hacking away at this endlessly if you like Lehah, knock yourself out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2021 - 1:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
um - yeah, I think it is a strange thing to say.
And no, the author did not work for Disney.
People are going crazy looking for things in the shadows.
You obviously don't know the sordid history of Media. Paid hit pieces are a time honored tradition.
And you might have missed the question mark I used. I didn't say it was a hit piece, but I most certainly know of the sordid traditions of Media.
very well Joe, yes "?" does make some difference. But we are getting a lot of people contriving 'stuff beneath the surface". I am rather tired of it. And I am tired of everyone so quickly and simplistically painting any and all corporations as Darth Vader Inc. This article in Variety is a fine piece, too long I would say, but valid, and I agree with most of it. And there is a juvenile-ism to people jumping on this law suit pity party bandwagon. And no, I do not feel in the slightest bit that this actress was lied to, wronged, violated, or exploited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
