[ SECRET POST #6804 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6804 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.
[The Brothers Bloom]



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________













05. [WARNING for discussion of dub/non-con]




__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for possible discussion of eating disorders]




__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of Neil Gaiman/sexual assault]






















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #971.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

07. [WARNING for discussion of Neil Gaiman/sexual assault]
https://i.imgur.com/awHFBWU.png

[(Anonymous)]

I just don't really get the pitchforks fans have for their faves speaking up or our or airing their opinions on everything. You don't need to know about their thoughts on issues, especially probably really personal emotional ones. And just because they don't share all their thoughts doesn't mean they have negative thoughts or support bad people.

[(Anonymous)]

In general I agree, but some people might categorize rape/sexual assault as a "probably really personal emotional" issue. I usually mentally separate the artist and their art but this particular situation (and in this political climate) is one where a loooooooot of women find themselves stopping to think about the previously-thought-to-be-a-one-of-the-good-ones and whether or not they are secret sexual predators, or if they support and defend sexual predators so long as they're famous creators.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I think secret OP's situation is also different from someone randomly demanding an actor's thoughts on world politics out of nowhere if they've never said anything on the subject.

If the actors in question seemed to support and be friends with the person before, it's not like they never mentioned the topic. The question isn't "what are your thoughts on this," it's "given what you said and posted before about the topic, did your thoughts change or do your previous statement stand?"

[paperghost]

I agree.

[(Anonymous)]

When you find out that a beloved friend and colleague, whom you trusted, has been a sexual predator for years, I imagine the sense of loss and betrayal is definitely personally emotional and would take time to process and probably isn't something you want to process publicly.

[(Anonymous)]

It depends on the person, TBH.

In someone who habitually keeps quiet on these sorts of issues, it's reasonable to expect silence here too.

But that silence becomes very loud with people like, say, David Tennant, who is otherwise incredibly vocal and outspoken in supporting minorities and oppressed groups, but who conveniently has nothing at all to say about a situation that one would reasonably expect, given his previous outspokenness, he would speak out about.

[(Anonymous)]

DA. Yes, this is the thing. If someone is ALWAYS silent on things it's one thing. But David Tennant is known for speaking up, so it gets really weird fast when he doesn't. It could mean he's just struggling to process and recontextualize his own friendship with Gaiman but it looks worse than it would for someone who never talks out.

[(Anonymous)]

Like others have said, it depends on the context. In this case, David Tennant not saying anything is a strobing red flag.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd assume most of the people who worked closely with Gaiman but haven't said anything since the news broke are subject to nondisclosure agreements and/or non-disparagement clauses in their work contracts that prohibit them from saying anything on pain of lawsuits.

[(Anonymous)]

Some people think it's a moral obligation to break those agreements and take the L(awsuit) in cases like this.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, this. People who have worked with him in the last few years may not be able to say anything. People who have worked with him further in the past absolutely have spoken up, like Tori Amos.

But also, don't look to celebrities for moral leadership, seriously.

[(Anonymous)]

I don’t need celebrities speaking out on whatever topic it is. I don’t need them denouncing someone they worked with or even were friends with. I hate the idea that being silent about a topic you don’t actually know about is a mark of complicity. Especially if you don’t have an ongoing relationship with the disgraced person.

Yes, I include sexual assault. Yes, I include people who are outspoken activists on some other topic.

SA

[(Anonymous)]

I feel differently if the person was literally there or actually close enough to know about intimate details. That’s not true of most colleagues or even many friends.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with you.

[(Anonymous)]

I honestly empathize with why they might hesitate to speak. They could be processing the loss of the friendship and weight of the abuse that was revealed, and their position as a public figure means that anything they say will be pored over and scrutinized, which surely makes it difficult to speak up about personal matters, plus sometimes there can be legal reasons to wait to comment. That said I can see why it would reflect badly on celebrities to stay silent and I do wonder what their feelings are.

[(Anonymous)]

People closest to NG know something we don't. He is not convicted and the whole story is fishy.

[(Anonymous)]

He's not convicted at the moment, but remember that at this level, stuff doesn't happen at lightning speed. The accusations were only made public last summer. One of his accusers filed a lawsuit against him and Amanda Palmer in February of this year. Gaiman is filing for half a million in damages against one of his accusers for violating the NDA. A lot of time has passed, there's no physical evidence, and it's largely he said/she said with confusing text evidence, which isn't what prosecutors like to hear re: a criminal trial.

Last but not least, Gaiman has the most money in this situation, and he's denying that it happened the way they said. Regardless of his guilt/innocence, the guy with the most money has the best chance of winning lawsuits. All the advantage in this case lies with him, not the women who accused him.

Lack of a criminal conviction isn't a guarantee of innocence. Legally, we must consider them innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But that's the legal definition. People have gotten away with crimes plenty of times.

[(Anonymous)]

Roz Kaveney has been a close friend of his for years and they've worked together on loads of stuff; she's made it very clear she believes the accusers. "The whole story is fishy" is weird too - this is multiple accusers.

[(Anonymous)]

And then there's Daniel, Rupert and Emma who immediately stood up for the trans community and distanced themselves from JKR, endangering their careers but finding their footing (helped that they already had careers after HP)

[(Anonymous)]

That is not the same thing, AT ALL.

Joanne can't legally do anything to anyone calling her out for the filth she is; that's why she likes to whine... sorry, I mean call attention to people sending her death threats, because it's literally the only reason people still feel sorry for her. She can't affect the trio's careers or personal lives, either. All three literally have 'Fuck you, Joanne!' money.

Joanne cannot hurt Dan, Emma, and Rupert in any way.

Who knows what Gaiman is capable of doing, if he's the monster he's accused of being?

[feotakahari]

Silence is preferable to them declaring it “not rape-rape.”

[(Anonymous)]

Speaking out before anything legally happens seems like an excellent way to get sued. Gaiman's probably guilty, but no one besides those involved knows for sure. There's no rush to speak out just because you're famous and tangentially connected to any legal issue until there has been an outcome, criminal or civil.

I remember when Guy Pearce spoke out after Kevin Spacey was publicly accused. Pearce said something like, "He (Spacey) was handsy," on the set they worked on together. People went fucking nuts because he spoke out of turn, and they felt he was flippant. I don't remember if Guy apologized, but he wasn't quoted about the accusations again.

[(Anonymous)]

Unfortunately, St Tennant can't do wrong by his fans. Remember that it's not the first time he worked with abusers and stayed silent, he has a track record with this kind of stuff

[(Anonymous)]

I not aware of the assault, but by legality one, if not both of them, may/have/need to appear in court, which by law they are not allowed to make public their opinions, even if all they know of him is purely professional, or otherwise.