butters
High on a Hill
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Posts
- 81,528
but will you? you have been warned so many times. last warning 'already given'? should be loves spam by now. should be....
Harvey Weinstein...
- Thread starter latecomer91364
- Start date
but will you? you have been warned so many times. last warning 'already given'? should be loves spam by now. should be....
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
Butt’rs obviously had a huge hardon for fata.
And now she has a fat-wah out for everyone she blames for fata’s death.
How pedestrian!
And now she has a fat-wah out for everyone she blames for fata’s death.
How pedestrian!
Saint Peter
shoots left
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 93,994
[Discussions promoting and/or accusations involving ********** and/or *****_ *** prohibited per our forum guidelines. - Last Warning Already Given - Really - Not fucking around here - Last one - Seriously]
Saint Peter
shoots left
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 93,994
Always.
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Posts
- 28,080
But those are the best kinds! Especially with holograms. And lizards. Big honking lizards. Like the giant iguanas scrambling over ruined minor Yucatan pyramids and kicking loose rocks on the heads of humans below. That big - but no bigger. Accusations of bigger lizards might invoke The Wrath Of The Mods. Oy.
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
Lit is my most favoritest place on the Weeb, and i think Laurel and Manu are lovely hosts.
Likewise, i think St Peter is a great guy, one of the GB’s most reliable posters.
So naturally, I’m a bit confused about this recent rash of Warnings and Deletions.
Is there an Update to the Rules or TOS that i missed?
If there have been changes to the rules or the way they are being interpreted, i would appreciate it if someone could provide me a link to the Update.
I know i dont want to be in breach of the Rules...
Thanks!
Saint Peter
shoots left
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 93,994
Thanks Lance!
Yeah, I don't get it. I don't have to. The last business I owned was a rock band playing in the diviest dives along the Front Range of Colorado. Fuck that. I clock out and leave. If the fucking place burns down overnight all I lose is the porn I stored on their computer.
L and M are different. They do what that have to do to keep the biz secure. Rules are rules. I operate inside of them and never have to have a 1 added to the end of my name.
Yeah, I don't get it. I don't have to. The last business I owned was a rock band playing in the diviest dives along the Front Range of Colorado. Fuck that. I clock out and leave. If the fucking place burns down overnight all I lose is the porn I stored on their computer.
L and M are different. They do what that have to do to keep the biz secure. Rules are rules. I operate inside of them and never have to have a 1 added to the end of my name.
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
I guess we need to learn to be more oblique.
latecomer91364
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Posts
- 5,182
Throw NBC News onto the ash heap of legitimate journalism. So much for objectivity (been dead there for years). Possibly the most important/influential of all Weinstein's protectors and enablers:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nbc-harvey-weinstein_us_59de5688e4b0eb18af059685
Meanwhile, Weinstein follows the hack screenplay scenario of "I've got a disease and need help", heading into rehab for sex addiction - the standard move for assholes.
Maybe in a few months he'll be getting standing ovations for bravely facing and defeating this debilitating 'sickness'. Hollywood has written worse garbage.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nbc-harvey-weinstein_us_59de5688e4b0eb18af059685
Meanwhile, Weinstein follows the hack screenplay scenario of "I've got a disease and need help", heading into rehab for sex addiction - the standard move for assholes.
Maybe in a few months he'll be getting standing ovations for bravely facing and defeating this debilitating 'sickness'. Hollywood has written worse garbage.
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
Seems to me that letting Mia Farrow's son loose on one of Woody Allen's business associates would give the appearance of conflict of interest.
I think NBC made a professionally responsible call in declining the story and letting their reporter shop it around.
I think NBC made a professionally responsible call in declining the story and letting their reporter shop it around.
latecomer91364
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Posts
- 5,182
Yeah... right. 3 degrees and many years of separation do not a potent argument make.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 56,401
Apparently anything is possible in Hollyweird, Weinstein's contract allowed for sexual harassment and his firing may have been illegal:
HARVEY WEINSTEIN
Contract with TWC
ALLOWED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
10/12/2017 2:57 PM PDT
Harvey Weinstein may have been fired illegally by The Weinstein Company, a company that wrote a contract that said Weinstein could get sued over and over for sexual harassment and as long as he shelled out money, that was good enough for the Company.
TMZ is privy to Weinstein's 2015 employment contract, which says if he gets sued for sexual harassment or any other "misconduct" that results in a settlement or judgment against TWC, all Weinstein has to do is pay what the company's out, along with a fine, and he's in the clear.
According to the contract, if Weinstein "treated someone improperly in violation of the company's Code of Conduct," he must reimburse TWC for settlements or judgments. Additionally, "You [Weinstein] will pay the company liquidated damages of $250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance."
The contract says as long as Weinstein pays, it constitutes a "cure" for the misconduct and no further action can be taken. Translation -- Weinstein could be sued over and over and as long as he wrote a check, he keeps his job.
The contract has specific language as to when the Board of Directors can fire Weinstein -- if he's indicted or convicted of a crime, but that doesn't apply here.
More here:
http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/12/weins...ein-company-sexual-harassment-firing-illegal/
DrDelirium
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 14, 2017
- Posts
- 889
True. On the other hand, NBC (and the rest of the entertainment industry) is pretty much one big conflict of interest.
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
Says you.
The journalists at NBC thought otherwise and let the story go elsewhere.
So what?
latecomer91364
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Posts
- 5,182
Apparently anything is possible in Hollyweird, Weinstein's contract allowed for sexual harassment and his firing may have been illegal:
HARVEY WEINSTEIN
Contract with TWC
ALLOWED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
10/12/2017 2:57 PM PDT
Harvey Weinstein may have been fired illegally by The Weinstein Company, a company that wrote a contract that said Weinstein could get sued over and over for sexual harassment and as long as he shelled out money, that was good enough for the Company.
TMZ is privy to Weinstein's 2015 employment contract, which says if he gets sued for sexual harassment or any other "misconduct" that results in a settlement or judgment against TWC, all Weinstein has to do is pay what the company's out, along with a fine, and he's in the clear.
According to the contract, if Weinstein "treated someone improperly in violation of the company's Code of Conduct," he must reimburse TWC for settlements or judgments. Additionally, "You [Weinstein] will pay the company liquidated damages of $250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance."
The contract says as long as Weinstein pays, it constitutes a "cure" for the misconduct and no further action can be taken. Translation -- Weinstein could be sued over and over and as long as he wrote a check, he keeps his job.
The contract has specific language as to when the Board of Directors can fire Weinstein -- if he's indicted or convicted of a crime, but that doesn't apply here.
More here:
http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/12/weins...ein-company-sexual-harassment-firing-illegal/
Thanks. Love that. Maybe I should watch more TMZ - I just find that shouting voice over throughout the show too irritating.
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
Is "Loves Spam" no longer in effect? AJ's profile doesn't include a private message option, nor does Fata's.
AngusBridie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2017
- Posts
- 1,572
A contract clause that allows for Sexual Harassment. Here all I wanted was my phone bill paid and travel expenses. I should have negotiated for more. Thats stunning
latecomer91364
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Posts
- 5,182
I completely get wanting to defend the crass enablers of Weinstein, I just don't agree with that blather. Had to laugh out loud at your depiction of those NBC folks as 'journalists'. Pretend journalists, maybe.
Lancecastor
Lit's Most Beloved Poster
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 54,670
Apparently anything is possible in Hollyweird, Weinstein's contract allowed for sexual harassment and his firing may have been illegal:
That's not unusual.
My contract with a telecom had specific language I drafted to nullify their ability to fire me for anything other than failing to fulfill my specific role.
In my view, if I wanted to run naked down Queen Street West at 3am, that was none of their business.
Without Harvey, TWC will likely fold...he was their rainmaker.
Anything short of a Criminal Conviction is none of their concern...nothing wrong with that.
Every employee should have the same protection from whimsy, imho.
I'm not defending anyone....I'm just pointing out that the world of business isn't governed by your opinion.
DrDelirium
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 14, 2017
- Posts
- 889
Apparently anything is possible in Hollyweird, Weinstein's contract allowed for sexual harassment and his firing may have been illegal:
HARVEY WEINSTEIN
Contract with TWC
ALLOWED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
10/12/2017 2:57 PM PDT
Harvey Weinstein may have been fired illegally by The Weinstein Company, a company that wrote a contract that said Weinstein could get sued over and over for sexual harassment and as long as he shelled out money, that was good enough for the Company.
TMZ is privy to Weinstein's 2015 employment contract, which says if he gets sued for sexual harassment or any other "misconduct" that results in a settlement or judgment against TWC, all Weinstein has to do is pay what the company's out, along with a fine, and he's in the clear.
According to the contract, if Weinstein "treated someone improperly in violation of the company's Code of Conduct," he must reimburse TWC for settlements or judgments. Additionally, "You [Weinstein] will pay the company liquidated damages of $250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance."
The contract says as long as Weinstein pays, it constitutes a "cure" for the misconduct and no further action can be taken. Translation -- Weinstein could be sued over and over and as long as he wrote a check, he keeps his job.
The contract has specific language as to when the Board of Directors can fire Weinstein -- if he's indicted or convicted of a crime, but that doesn't apply here.
More here:
http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/12/weins...ein-company-sexual-harassment-firing-illegal/
Fascinating can o' worms here. Of course, this may expose TWC to immense liability, as basically showing that they expected and endorsed his behavior, but more interesting than that is the question of to what degree contracts can displace legislation. While this particular contract doesn't seem to have any impact on the victim's rights- except for revenge, perhaps- it does suggest the possibility that Harvey missed the boat in not including protective clauses in the contracts with his actresses. Americans seem to be fine with the idea that the TOS of Facebook is a legitimate way to restrict their rights of expression, why not use contracts to restrict the legal remedies of employees? The Libertarian Dream!
Of course this is already done to a great extent, but the burden falls most heavily on the lowest levels of employees and generally has some sort of supportive legislative framework, like work-for-hire laws. But the principle could be easily extended from these limited precedents to cover almost any kind of activity that is not prima facie felonious.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 56,401
More like the Democratic Party's "Ministry of Truth."
ToucheAmore
Loves Spam
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2017
- Posts
- 260
It's not a political issue it's a harassment issue.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 56,401
We're talking about NBC, dopey.
Similar threads
