Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: When Actors claim Defamation! (Read 22290 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #15 –
Quote from: LP – on
It's immeasurable PaulP, unprovable in either the positive or a negative, in too many cases both the accusations and the effects of those accusations are subjective.

Using some other unknowns persons rise in social media from obscurity due to reality TV is not a relevant measure at all, that is as valid or as irrelevant as the millions of clicks providing proof for some fraudulent article like an acrobatic jetliner!

In your demand for proof you demand knowledge of something before the fact, that in itself is a form of obfuscation!

So in other words, you have no examples.

The parallels between a surge in work, profile etc., between reality TV folks and accusers are perfectly valid.

Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #16 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
The parallels between a surge in work, profile etc., between reality TV folks and accusers are perfectly valid.

I don't think so, the subject of this thread is the potential for coordinated activity on either side.

There are questions on both sides that should leave the reasonable person feeling uncomfortable, and I see no reason to favor one side above the other!

In the Rush case, his accuser doesn't pay, this isn't a case between the accused and the accuser, yet the accuser testifies! Through hate, justice or reward?

Rush could be rewarded, while he risks costs he could also be assessed as placing a bet!

If there is no benefit what motives of his accuser, I'm rightly led to believe that in genuine circumstances these are deeply private, personal and embarrassing situations causing grief and disenchantment. Yet I see a smiling, perhaps even parading, débutante leaving the court! Why participate in the media organizations litigation, this is a civil case isn't it?

Am I to be expected to assume it is of good intention, if so explain why on what grounds?

Further to today's events, why the sudden change in the defense plea have they discovered a liability or exposed a fraud?
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #17 –
Still waiting LP. It's ok, no need to rush (tee hee.) I intend being on this forum for years, so I've got all the time in the world.

Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #18 –
The Rush case is different.  He is suing the newspaper for defamation.  This is not only for personal reputation, but also loss of work.  I don't think the actress made a formal complaint.

The consequences of Rush's action is that everything has to be aired. He has to be able to prove that he has been defamed, therefore his story, her story and everyone else's who was involved in that production.

From the reports, there is a massive defense of Rush, and the actress has been saying that she was intimidated by who he is - and she has little support from the rest of the people involved in the show.  It seems to be along typical lines - someone with power and someone with none.  There is also a blurring of generations and what is and isn't acceptable.  Two worlds colliding.

Back to the original question - who is to be believed?  In many cases, both would have elements that are to be believed,  That doesn't make them both right.








Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #19 –
Quote from: dodge – on
The Rush case is different.  He is suing the newspaper for defamation.  This is not only for personal reputation, but also loss of work.  I don't think the actress made a formal complaint.

The consequences of Rush's action is that everything has to be aired. He has to be able to prove that he has been defamed, therefore his story, her story and everyone else's who was involved in that production.

From the reports, there is a massive defense of Rush, and the actress has been saying that she was intimidated by who he is - and she has little support from the rest of the people involved in the show.  It seems to be along typical lines - someone with power and someone with none.  There is also a blurring of generations and what is and isn't acceptable.  Two worlds colliding.

Back to the original question - who is to be believed?  In many cases, both would have elements that are to be believed,  That doesn't make them both right.

A sensible response that is free of political, social or moral agenda.

I have one associate who works in a similar area of the arts, projects they get involved in are like those of Rush and they are not developed overnight. They are planned years out, it's surprising to know how far out some of these endeavors start, not months but years! I find it an uncomfortable assertion from the Rush camp, and the Wilson camp before that, and the claims by their supporters, that opportunities dried up effectively overnight. Because if they were busy they would have been working on projects 2 or 3 years out from completion with a lot of money already invested. Not something that investors will generally throw out with the bathwater, or when a court date is not yet even set in a such civil case!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #20 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Still waiting LP. It's ok, no need to rush (tee hee.) I intend being on this forum for years, so I've got all the time in the world.

Then given all the time in the world I'm sure some cases will pop up, at least some cases visible to those without the agenda, be patient! ;)

It's odd for you to be arguing in the black and white!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #21 –
btw., Final update today.

Affronted by an emoji it seems!

I did a quick pop quiz here in the office, not many people but I showed a few different age groups of people asking them what the alleged emoji means. I basically got a three main categories, drunken wink, raspberry wink, nudge nudge wink, not one person thought it meant some weird licking wink or panting tongue lapping wink.

I suppose I now have to assume Rush is devilishly clever, picked just the right emoji to send an suggestive and offensive yet ambiguous message! Alternative is the girl a moron or a gold digger, could they both be in it for profit!

Maybe Rush wins his defamation case, then makes quiet restitution with the girl as an apology for an unfortunate yet otherwise simple misunderstanding, must I be so cynical! If I hadn't worked for so long at the newspapers, with the connected behind the scenes insights, I'd look at this whole episode far more innocently.

They are all potentially profiting, even the newspaper, they are probably making more additional money right now than they will ever have to pay out, and it's a very uncomfortable feeling!

Bye ...................... no alternate meaning intended!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #22 –
Quote from: LP – on
A sensible response that is free of political, social or moral agenda.

I have one associate who works in a similar area of the arts, projects they get involved in are like those of Rush and they are not developed overnight. They are planned years out, it's surprising to know how far out some of these endeavors start, not months but years! I find it an uncomfortable assertion from the Rush camp, and the Wilson camp before that, and the claims by their supporters, that opportunities dried up effectively overnight. Because if they were busy they would have been working on projects 2 or 3 years out from completion with a lot of money already invested. Not something that investors will generally throw out with the bathwater, or when a court date is not yet even set in a such civil case!


Yes, the forward planning works - so he would currently be working on projects or not, his choice or not, but then the offers come in for films, plays etc for a couple of years time and his name is no longer on the contact list.  If he is working currently, he could be pulled from that work, as the company doesn't want the association.  The company would work with investors to suggest alternatives.  He would be well sought after (much more than Wilson, I would think) so his agent would know about the volume of offers coming in.

Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #24 –
Actors, pffft, wouldn't feed em.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #25 –
Quote from: dodge – on
This from Crikey...

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-rush-trial-will-leave-behind-nothing-but-wreckage/ar-BBP8ltD?ocid=spartandhp

The following line in the article caught my eye.

Quote
The law demands that there be an objective truth at the bottom of this. Either Norvill is lying, or Rush is lying.

In intent perhaps, in practice in cases like this hardly, they are often far more subjective than objective!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: When Actors claim Defamation!

Reply #26 –
Quote from: LP – on
The following line in the article caught my eye.

In intent perhaps, in practice in cases like this hardly, they are often far more subjective than objective!

It's a civil case so the burden of proof is lower but it's still based on a subjective judgement.  "Objective truth" is probably not a thing, particularly when you're dealing with the perceptions of folk who are over 40 years apart in age.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball