Permanently A
Junior Member
This image has never been more relevant.
Gawker put up an article accusing Louis CK of sexual misconduct
- Thread starter shadyspace
- Start date
- Status
The article only mentions unsourced second-hand rumors, so I guess there are no accusations for you not to dismiss.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Not really comparable. Only one of them has a long and storied history of sexual assault.
I wouldn't be surprised if this were true, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't either.
FrenchToastDisciple
Member
What a stupid fucking article. Not because it couldn't possibly be true (I love Louis CK, but I am never surprised by anything any celebrities do), but because it's awful journalism that only serves to plant the idea in peoples' heads without proper verification. Now, I'm going to think about this every time I watch Louis' show or stand-up and suffer for it, despite the fact that there's no particular reason why I should believe the claims in their current state.
This shit is pointless, and posting it now before further work is done to verify the claims only serves as a cynical attempt by Gawker to generate traffic and clicks, to the determinant of literally every other consideration at play here, hypothetical or otherwise.
This shit is pointless, and posting it now before further work is done to verify the claims only serves as a cynical attempt by Gawker to generate traffic and clicks, to the determinant of literally every other consideration at play here, hypothetical or otherwise.
And this thread proves your point. His character is already in doubt in how many people in this thread already. Based on a thin as fuck article on Gawker. GAWKER!
Feel like I'm getting served Obama is not a U.S. Citizen info from an email someone forwards me. This is your source? Trump and infowars.c0m?
Telling no other outlet has touched this at all. But that's because most won't ruin a reputation without iron clad proof. This is National Enquirer level reporting. Guess what I saw when I was in line at the supermarket. Obama and Michelle are secretly getting a divorce!
I think publicly and habitually masturbating in front of strangers is kinda the opposite of how he presents himself in his stand-up and TV show.
I have to agree. He talks about similar stuff and acts out similar stuff, but based on his comedy it would be something he would never actually do. I can't imagine him as some kind of Paul Reubens closet pervert.
old manatee
Banned
Cosby has dozens of women accusing him, going back decades. Louis CK has one gawker article.
its crazy how quickly people will jump on something based on just a rumor from an awful site. people will even say "yeah i could see that".
From what I can tell and my absolute zero background in law, I'd think that CK has a HUGE defamation suit against Gawker if he wanted. They outright admit that they couldn't corroborate anything.
If he loses a dollar, he should sue the shit out of them and demand a retraction.
And for everyone trying to compare this to Cosby, it's not the same. Now, if thirteen women all come out openly and accuse of CK of whipping his dick out in a predatory fashion? That'd change things. But as of now the two are nowhere near similar.
If he loses a dollar, he should sue the shit out of them and demand a retraction.
And for everyone trying to compare this to Cosby, it's not the same. Now, if thirteen women all come out openly and accuse of CK of whipping his dick out in a predatory fashion? That'd change things. But as of now the two are nowhere near similar.
But if he's guilty, this is pretty awkward for him. What if a text from him to Kate Micucci is found, that says something like "sorry about last night"? Any evidence could ruin that.
....Why am I not surprised?
i think it would be pretty difficult to argue that the allegations published constitute "actual malice"
also important to note is that the only thing gawker actually accuses CK of is attemping to communicate with someone else that accused him of sexual misconduct. nothing more, nothing less
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Innocent until proven guilty is for courts. It's a fallacy in the world of public opinion that's used to just dismiss stories rather than helping us actually get more information. We don't have both sides of the story to prove reasonable doubt.
We don't really have any story either way yet.
I mean I don't know him personally of course, so I can't say for sure what he would or wouldn't do. I'm just disputing the poster's idea that Louis' comedy persona makes this "seem like exactly something he would do," when his comedy persona acts in basically the exact opposite manner of these allegations.
uhh peewee had child porn on his pc in relation to the case against jeffrey Jones.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Used to dismiss stories? Like that boston bomber hunt eh? Not attacking accused people while supporting victims can be done you know.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
This isn't a response to anything I said.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Oh. Misunderstood you then. Sorry.
Technically we dont have any side to this story.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
This thread reminds me of how many people jumped all over Bryan Singer as a disgusting rapist of young boys, then were entirely absent for the threads where the accuser's own lawyer dropped him, his case was eviscerated and dropped based on evidence he was never in the same state, and he was counter-sued for the damage his conflicting claims had wrought.
POWERSPHERE
Member
Fbh
Member
But "innocent until proven guilty" and all that
But yeah, you never know and there is allways a chance things like these are real, specialy with celebrities and famous people.
But one can only speculate when half the sources are annonymus and the other half are like "the best friend of the daughter of the aunt of my roomate heard a rumor"
But yeah, you never know and there is allways a chance things like these are real, specialy with celebrities and famous people.
But one can only speculate when half the sources are annonymus and the other half are like "the best friend of the daughter of the aunt of my roomate heard a rumor"
No he did not. Reubens was a collector of vintage pornography, and mixed in his stacks of vintage (as in material from the 1800s and early 1900s) was old material containing teens as well. He never had chid porn on his PC. It is just his vast collection of vintage porn contained material in books and artwork of minors. Most of which was purchased for his collection in large quantities without ever even going through the stacks of material being bought. When they did the search his collection of vintage pornography was over 70,000 items worth that he often bought in bulk having no idea what material was mixed in.
They even looked at his PC after that and found nothing on it. And the charges were dropped.
During the first few episodes of The Nightly Show, while discussing the Cosby stuff, a women on the panel questioned why "people don't believe the accusers" and said "there is no reality shows for the accusers". I thought that was off at the time.
False allegations do happen (though Cosby specifically is guilty, clearly). It probably happened to Singer, it probably happened to Kobe Bryant. Sometimes people are looking for a payout, or are just seeking attention. It's horrible, not just because of the public damage it does to the accusers, but because it makes it harder to rally around a victim without hearing more context or evidence.
I'm afraid an unsourced Gawker article isn't going to get me to draw conclusions, but I hope it shines a light on CK's past and the truth is revealed either way.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What do have now? Third hand unsubstantiated account?
Regardless of whether or not that's true (and it's not) the original charges levied about Pee Wee Herman that somewhat ruined his career were about the fact that he was caught masturbating in a porn theatre.
And frankly, I'd be more disturbed if someone was in a porn theatre and not masturbating, because it means they're actually into the story.
bengraven
Member
Here's where someone comes in and says you're defending a rapist.
It's just the sad situation about the internet - once you've been accused there's always, always people who are going to assume you are guilty even when proven innocent.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Discotheque
Banned
Comments are still made about him too in singer-related threads
Really hard to shake this off once you've been accused
King Tubby
Member
Everything I've read about this indicates that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and the burden is even higher when the plaintiff is a public figure.
I remember the first one....I'm curious now as to what I posted in it.....I have no recollection of where the story went or the threads about it....
Off to search!
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
These situations are more examples of people being attracted to controversial aspects of news stories than they are an indictment of societal behavior. Who says this about Bryan Singer anymore?
Gnome Scat
Member
I'm not going to buy into this until there's some actual valid evidence that he's done this. He's a huge target for a rumor like this to be directed at, and after the whole Cosby incident along with his comedic style, it could actually take off.
I think the point is that people threw him under the bus before he even had a chance to defend himself
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Absolutely, but people do this about literally anyone and anything. Justice > schadenfreude.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Bryan Singer was already under the bus. It's why his accuser tried to cash in on it. There's a reason the industry's overwhelming response to the (false) accusations was "Oh, he finally caught a case off that bullshit, huh?"
Here's the GAF thread when the first accusations came out.
old manatee
Banned
I'm really bothered by the way that some people are comparing this to Cosby. Cosby has over FORTY accusers. People with actual names who have come forward with allegations going back decades. His power and money shielded him from even having to face any of these people in court until he was finally shamed in the court of public opinion.
A couple of rumors from anonymous people in a freaking gawker article is not even the same thing.
A couple of rumors from anonymous people in a freaking gawker article is not even the same thing.
The comments by Jen Kirkman on her podcast would seem to corroborate this story. She is clearly talking about Louis CK. I'm not saying the allegations are true but the story combined with the podcast lends some weight to the allegations, maybe? I don't really know. These kinds of situations are always weird. I can't imagine these accusations materialising out of nothing. The (presumably) Garfunkel and Oates story seems oddly specific.
It remains to be seen what this amounts to, I guess.
It remains to be seen what this amounts to, I guess.
Okay, but... who collects "vintage" porn?
Inertia Creeps
Banned
It's not a fucking "fallacy", it's common sense and proper etiquette for any sane, non-deranged human being to not jump to erroneous conclusions over unsubstantiated stories about matters as serious as sexual abuse/misconduct. Dismissing a worthless, shitty unsupported Gawker article as the trash it is does nothing to impede any actual investigation into whether this might be true, it's just the right thing to do when it comes to cretinous faux-journalism designed for the sole purpose of baiting clicks. Also, there is no "side" to this story, nor is there anything that could be construed as "evidence" to prove anything beyond "reaosnable doubt" as you put it, other than the fact that Gawker is garbage I guess.
- Status