court document quoting the model's blog wrote:
“[Name and studio omitted] Inappropriate (for brevity, groping, soliciting sex,sending dick pics, extreme limit pushing, and the like will fall under inappropriate).

Which then Alan claims is "too vague", which may be true.  I mean one models "limit pushing" may be considered a compliment by another model.  A common phrase that I've heard many photographers use during a shoot is "make love to the camera" can be called "extreme limit pushing" if you take it to the literal definition.

If all he did or say was something on that level, it's not fair to lump him in with the gropers and guys soliciting sex.  Obviously, if there was more to it then it's probably fair to lump him in with thhe others.

I also find it odd that the model doesn't have to provide the burden of proof that he was inappropriate, but he has to provide proof that he DIDN'T do it. 

Even more surprising (to me) is that all the court needed from Alan to satisfy the burden of proof is a statement saying he didn't do it... and he didn't make that statement.  Alan appeared to be very well versed on the law and find this to be something that's too obvious for him to miss or skip.

I don't know either of the parties or the exact situations to come to any conclusions as to who's right or wrong.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Interesting read, and it explains the most likely reason for the accused's sudden and noticeable absence from MM.

To me it seems like a 'He said / she said' dispute gone sour.  The main issue is that Marin labelled him as "Inappropriate" ....I also find it odd that the model doesn't have to provide the burden of proof that he was inappropriate, but he has to provide proof that he DIDN'T do it.

I think that's the other side: Someone(s) has has had slanderous things said about them and without being proven guilty of anything has suffered losses based on these unproven allegations, which is the classic grounds for a civil lawsuit.

I think this case is very interesting in that it really explores the area between free speech and the right to not be defamed.  As I read the link, it's not really that that those making allegations against the photographer have won, but rather that their allegations fall under the realm of public interest and expressing an opinion and therefore don't qualify as defamation despite the fact those unproven allegations have clearly caused the person in question losses.

I think what is is important to note about the OP's statement is that in this case there was no finding that the allegations against the person in question were in fact true, the finding was that people (mostly models in this case) had the right to write their allegations in a public venue, true or not.  Public interest and right to express one's opinion trump defamation of character in this case, seems to be the decision.  (and it does appear many of the allegations made were subjective in nature, what one person feels is harassment or uncomfortable, another person may not) 

Personally, I have mixed feelings.  I agree with the OP that a problem with our legal system is that it's easy to to "win" simply by making an allegation which will cost money for the other party to defend.  On the other hand, I believe those who have suffered negative consequences due to unproven allegations against them, should be able to seek compensation in court, and have the opportunity to defend themselves against said allegations. 

I hate to see people lose their position, status and income based on unproven allegations.

Oaktree Pictorial wrote:
People are defending Roy Moore, too.

I'm not sure if that's a shot at me because you think I'm defending Alan. 
Just to be clear, I'm not defending him at all.

I'm basically discussing the highlights and pitfalls of a court case that can have an effect on any MM member because the same thing can happen to them.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
It should be noted that this is an appeals court decision, which means another court originally sided with Alan.

It could mean that, but not in this case.  The appeals court affirmed the lower court ruling: "The orders granting Hill’s and Prescott’s anti-SLAPP motions to strike are affirmed."

Much of the previous discussion about the plaintiff having to prove or disprove the allegations are relative to the nature of the dismissal, i.e.: the anti-SLAPP defense.  (SLAPP= Strategic lawsuit against public participation.)  It doesn't matter so much wether the claims are true as the right of the defendants to make statements in a public forum where the audience has a legitimate interest.  Due to the legitimate interest of the audience, and other specifics mentioned about the plaintiff's business, it was deemed that he would be unlikely to prevail in the defamation case- not that the claims are true.  The court did acknowledge that false accusations of sexual harassment would be damaging, but found that he was unlikely to prove the damage.  It is interesting that the defendants used SLAPP protections to defend themselves, but did not file a SLAPP Back suit. 

It would be interesting to know what the parties paid out in attorney's fees for this case.  And, under reflection of the results, if the original action and court challenge was worth it.


See:
The complaint arises from protected activity- page 7
Probability of Prevailing- page 10
Other causes of action- page 12
Disposition- page 13

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Interesting read, and it explains the most likely reason for the accused's sudden and noticeable absence from MM.

To me it seems like a 'He said / she said' dispute gone sour.

The blacklist tumblr post has thousands upon thousands of hits by now, including dozens on dozens of other model's additions to it. If you want to take the time to search through it and read about the other accounts of Alan's behaviour, you'll see this is not an instance of "dispute gone sour". Alan had/has many complaints against him.

I also find it odd that the model doesn't have to provide the burden of proof that he was inappropriate, but he has to provide proof that he DIDN'T do it.

Alans the one filing the suit, that oftentimes makes you the one (more) responsible for proof. its not defamation if its actually true. While he can prove his business losses, if he cant or wont prove he didnt do the things alleged and that they are in fact lies....well, then it's not proven defamation

Even more surprising (to me) is that all the court needed from Alan to satisfy the burden of proof is a statement saying he didn't do it... and he didn't make that statement.  Alan appeared to be very well versed on the law and find this to be something that's too obvious for him to miss or skip.

I don't know either of the parties or the exact situations to come to any conclusions as to who's right or wrong.

Alan spoke in ridiculous length in legal discussions on MM and apparently was willing to waste the time and money believing he had this case in the bag, so yeah...if he refused to do something so incredibly simple as say "I didnt do those things" its not because he was too stupid to realize thats all it would have taken.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

It could mean that, but not in this case.  The appeals court affirmed the lower court ruling: "The orders granting Hill’s and Prescott’s anti-SLAPP motions to strike are affirmed."

Much of the previous discussion about the plaintiff having to prove or disprove the allegations are relative to the nature of the dismissal, i.e.: the anti-SLAPP defense.  (SLAPP= Strategic lawsuit against public participation.)  It doesn't matter so much wether the claims are true as the right of the defendants to make statements in a public forum where the audience has a legitimate interest.  Due to the legitimate interest of the audience, and other specifics mentioned about the plaintiff's business, it was deemed that he would be unlikely to prevail in the defamation case- not that the claims are true.  The court did acknowledge that false accusations of sexual harassment would be damaging, but found that he was unlikely to prove the damage.  It is interesting that the defendants used SLAPP protections to defend themselves, but did not file a SLAPP Back suit. 

It would be interesting to know what the parties paid out in attorney's fees for this case.  And, under reflection of the results, if the original action and court challenge was worth it.


See:
The complaint arises from protected activity- page 7
Probability of Prevailing- page 10
Other causes of action- page 12
Disposition- page 13

There were GoFundMes and such used, you can probably still find them if you google well. They wont show the exact costs of course, but it was nothing to sneeze at either.

Laura UnBound wrote:
The blacklist tumblr post has thousands upon thousands of hits by now, including dozens on dozens of other model's additions to it. If you want to take the time to search through it and read about the other accounts of Alan's behaviour, you'll see this is not an instance of "dispute gone sour". Alan had/has many complaints against him.

Do you know where I could find that Tumblr post/account? I'd be interested in hearing what has happened.

Oaktree Pictorial wrote:
People are defending Roy Moore, too.

That's a pathetic analogy that is unfair to the models who were involved in trying to deal with an ongoing issue in the industry/community. Time may or may not vindicate Moore, but the blacklist situation seems very different.

Whatever Moore did or did not do was confined to a period of a few years back in the 70's. No one has alleged any ongoing issues with him approaching young women since the time of his marriage. One set of doubts about the accusations come from some direct issues associated with timing of the events back then, conflicting accounts from others at the time, intervening actions through the years that would be inconsistent with the accusations being true, and questions about authenticity of some evidence. Another set of doubts about the accusations is that the timing is convenient for partisan political purposes. Either way, raising these issues now is not part of protecting anyone from an ongoing threat. At best, they are a chance to hold someone accountable for wrongdoing that happened but ended decades ago. At worst, they are another example of telling ugly lies to harm a political opponent.

I don't know much about this blacklist, but from what I read in the link, the blacklist was an attempt to address ongoing issues in the model photography industry and community. While the list may have had a punitive effect on people who had done wrong, an equally important reason for the list seems to have been helping models to avoid similar issues in the future. Trying to equate something done to protect a group of people moving forward is not the same as taking shots at someone over something that happened but ended decades in the past.

To some extent, the Al Franken situation would be more analogous to the black list in that people are saying that he has been touching women's hips and butts during his entire time as a Senator. Whether those allegations or true or not is another unknown. I don't like Franken, and that picture with Ms. Tweeden was absolutely wrong. However, we don't absolutely know how much he truly groped anyone else. 

A long-time friend is a political science professor, and he's know of a similar list of Congress members for the past twenty or so years. When he was first involved with advising on the issue of young women going to DC for some time to work for a member of Congress, he was given a list of about a hundred members of Congress representing both parties. He was told that young women should avoid working for those members of Congress and should generally avoid being around them. I'm sure that the names have changed over the years, but the problem hasn't. Like the blacklist that the models made, the point of that list was to protect people against present or future risks and not to destroy members of Congress for things they had done decades in the past.

I worry about situations where people put different interpretations on different behaviors and try to destroy a person over a difference in interpretation. Lumping those who are socially awkward but not malicious with those who are predatory is just as wrong as being predatory. These are all real issues, but they are issues of protecting models from present and future risks. Protecting people from risks is not analogous to raking up an issue from decades ago.

Python Photos wrote:

I think that your propensity to look at these events through a political lens clouds your judgement.  You admit to not liking one guy, and you seem to like another.  If you looked at the facts of these cases without considering political ideology, or even knowing who these people were, would it change your perspective? 

The comparison with a certain person isn't much of a stretch to me.  I will grant many of your points.  It seems to have been limited to the 70s.  Except for those under 16 years old, it wasn't illegal.  Except to forcibly kiss someone, to hold them against their will in a vehicle, to leave them stranded in a parking lot, etc., if laws weren't broken, there was certainly a judgement issue.  However, to cast doubt on the accusers because of the question, "why now," is absurd.  Yes, these accusations could have been made at any point in his career, but if you consider the treatment of women, or men, who made such accusations in the past, it is easily understandable why one would chose to remain silent.  When he, or anyone else, runs for higher office (or any office) now, such things should come out.  They are pertinent to character.  In this particular case, when a person has to be removed from a judiciary post TWICE for ignoring higher court orders, one must consider if the defiance of social norms and legal norms are related.  And, as for why now?  Another prominent figure has been caught on tape bragging about his sexual predatory behavior, (he now denies it was him on the tape) and he was given a pass.  Don't you think that might have been enough of a catalyst to really piss off the victims of other predators?   If not now, just exactly when do you think it is appropriate for victims to come forward?  Silence is golden ... for predators.

One should also consider not only the stories of those claiming to be the victims of his sexual impropriety, but those of the community and witnesses.  Even in a small town, it takes a lot to develop a reputation for having an interest in much younger girls.  It takes a considerable number of events to get banned (blacklisted, if you will) from a mall.  Your argument that the behavior stopped when he got married, rings hollow when you consider that the age difference is consistent with the other accusations, and, apparently, he first "noticed" his now wife was when she was 15 or 16.  One could interpret that to be a continuation of the behavior, justified by marriage. 

Most importantly, what does it say about a man when he denies accusations vehemently when the events in question fit a common pattern that the community was aware of, even if they were not aware of the actual events?  Through out our society, people are judged by prior acts and said acts are also considered a predictor of future acts.  Bail is denied because of threats to the community.  People convicted of crimes are denied jobs and opportunities.   But the society doesn't limit these judgements to those with a criminal record, do they?  The Blacklist is an example of that.  So is the fact that a prominent member of MM was removed from the site because of those unproven in court accusations.  Fact is, if a model was attacked by someone on the blacklist, and it came out that she had seen the warning and worked with the guy anyway, many people would be blaming her for working with him.  Even though he had not been convicted of any crime.   The model can be blamed just for being a model.  I have seen comments from the Me Too campaign that malign models for just that.  The models want the benefits of the being a model without the negative parts of the job.  WHAT!?!  Who wants the negative sides of any job?  Much less when those "perks" for the employer involve sexual assault or rape!  The person you defend, has certainly exhibited serial tendencies.  Was he cured by marriage?  What happens if he experiences a trigger in the future?  Are you sure that he will not repeat?  Even then, do you want someone that has justified his actions, actions which society has found reprehensible, to be in a position of power to make new laws or sit in judgement over criminal/civil cases that might involve such actions?  Your own example about the list of congress members is an indication of how pervasive this is.

Yes, it is a shame to lump the socially awkward in with sexual predators, but socially awkward people need to obey laws as well.   And show respect.  I would hope that society would be kind enough to allow awkward people to grow and learn. Where as, at least, awkward is not dangerous.   But really, are you saying that a professional, with a college degree, and a law degree, a member of the bar, and with experience as an ADA in the criminal system, that prefers underage women that could be nearly half his age, is socially awkward?

I have refrained from saying many things in this post and others on the subject of sexual assault and sexual harassment because of the political prohibition we are subject to, under the philosophy that politics do not belong in the forums.  However, concerning these subjects, the overlap with our industry, our friends, our collaborators, our peers: the very fabric of our society- the actions of famous photographers and public servants are equally within the scope of the discussion because the discussion is not about politics; it is about sexual harassment and assault.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
To me it seems like a 'He said / she said' dispute gone sour.

I'm very ambivalent regarding such actions.

On the one hand I can understand and support the idea to reach more safety by making things more transparent and exchanging information.
That is always a good idea.

On the other hand I feel requested to accept accusations which I simply cannot verify as proven evidence.
In the end suchs lists does not say more than "Hey - they are the predators and we are the good ones! We demand that you believe this!"

It is more convincing when people collect legal records and publish evidence which can be regarded as proven by a functional law enforcement and court system. This may definitely be more difficult but it is definitely more convincing, too.

I do neither know Brennan nor the photographers listed on her blacklist. Why should I believe her and a dozen or so other models more than a dozen or so photographers? Okay, I'm geographically quite far away from all these people but honestly... such "blacklists" does not make appetite for working with anybody involved in this.

TomFRohwer wrote:
I do neither know Brennan nor the photographers listed on her blacklist. Why should I believe her and a dozen or so other models more than a dozen or so photographers? Okay, I'm geographically quite far away from all these people but honestly... such "blacklists" does not make appetite for working with anybody involved in this.

How many allegations meet your standard? Obviously a dozen is insufficient, so is there a number that would satisfy you?

What would these dozen or more accusers stand to gain by all making false claims? You even state it reduces the “appetite for working with anybody involved,” which sadly is a very common response and therefore shows it’s unlikely to lead to more work.

The problem with not believing the accusers is that it creates an environment where they have nothing to gain and much to lose by coming forward, and it’s that environment which allows the abuse to continue, often for many years. Harvey Weinstein has 80+ accusers, James Toback 238, Charlie Rose 9, Donald trump 16, and those are just a few examples. Do any of these meet your standard?

If instead we believe the accusers and create a safe environment for them to come forward just think how many incidents could be avoided and how many fewer victims there would be. After all, isn't a safe working environment better for everyone?

And I don’t understand the comparison to a dozen or so photographers. What exactly are they hypothetically claiming in your scenario?

Oaktree Pictorial wrote:
Hill was quite literally put on trial. She could not win anything in this trial; the only question was how much she would lose. As I said in the OP, she “won” but has little to show for it.

That's the nature of being sued vs. suing someone.  People who are sued for a loss they allegedly caused someone else are rarely awarded money. To be awarded money, you have to file a suit against another person and seek damages.

Oaktree Pictorial wrote:
Her tormentor is out nothing, free to go on being himself.

Well, first of all, it has not been proven he was in fact a tormentor.  Secondly, it's not true he's out nothing.  He is out his position as a moderator, and his photography has suffered greatly due to allegations against him.  That's the basis of his lawsuit.  He is also probably out legal fees.  One could argue, he is has suffered a loss for which is denied the opportunity to seek compensation due to an anti-SLAPP legislation.   

I'm not taking his side, I'm just pointing out that your whole point is based on the idea that the allegations against hm are true, and that the allegations he has made don't have merit, neither of which has yet been proven.  Also, he has in fact suffered losses as spelled out in the document you yourself provided.

Oaktree Pictorial wrote:
According to the judicial document linked in the OP, plaintiff Brenner represented himself

One of many ironies in this case is that had Brenner gone to a competent attorney who could evaluate things objectively, he would have been advised to take some deep breaths and forget about a lawsuit. No attorney would take the case on a contingency basis because he  would never actually collect a dime from the defendants -  even if he recovered a judgment. The controversy generated by the proceedings would just amplify public awareness of the underlying allegations. That's exactly what has happened.

Now photographers are aware of these models and may be reluctant to work with them.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
The thing that I don't understand is that models will still work, and even defend even the worst predators out there even when there's blacklists, police reports, and a network of people warning others against them.

<snip>

Although his activity with models has seemed to come to a recent halt, he's still at it and there's a few female models that are promoting him, even on MM.

So what? The worst creepers are often outwardly charismatic and/or successful people. They are able to exploit whatever abilities they may have developed and whatever social skills they've honed to enable their predatory behavior. In this case, some creepers just happened to cross paths with the wrong individuals, who would not simply endure their bullshit, and that's all it takes for a predator to be exposed: someone willing to speak up and not be silenced through intimidation, including use of the legal system to shut them up.

So just because a predator is able to hoodwink other models into thinking he's a super-swell guy is really neither here nor there. He's still a predator.

Oaktree Pictorial wrote:
According to the judicial document linked in the OP, plaintiff Brenner represented himself

One of many ironies in this case is that had Brenner gone to a competent attorney who could evaluate things objectively, he would have been advised to take some deep breaths and forget about a lawsuit. No attorney would take the case on a contingency basis because he  would never actually collect a dime from the defendants -  even if he recovered a judgment. The controversy generated by the proceedings would just amplify public awareness of the underlying allegations. That's exactly what has happened.

Years ago I had some people making false allegations against me and consulted a lawyer about a potential defamation lawsuit and the advice I got was basically what you have mentioned.  The lawyer told me they are very, very difficult to win, and even if you win, hard to collect on.  Odds are one will spend a lot of money and in the end only draw more attention to the allegations being made.  Even if you win and prove the allegations false, it’s the allegations, not your innocence people may remember.  Proving your innocence doesn’t mean your reputation and any loses you’ve had will be restored.   It doesn’t surprise me one bit that he wasn’t represented or that his case was dismissed.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
The thing that I don't understand is that models will still work, and even defend even the worst predators out there even when there's blacklists, police reports, and a network of people warning others against them. (...)

Dean Kelly (aka Dashphoto) (...)

Calvin Merit (Calvin Merritt, Kelvin Merritt) (...)

Correct me if I'm wrong but these guys are not on the "blacklist"...

So as well as this are obviously proven accusations it says nothing regarding the credibility of the famous blacklist.

TomFRohwer wrote:

I'm very ambivalent regarding such actions.

On the one hand I can understand and support the idea to reach more safety by making things more transparent and exchanging information.
That is always a good idea.

On the other hand I feel requested to accept accusations which I simply cannot verify as proven evidence.
In the end suchs lists does not say more than "Hey - they are the predators and we are the good ones! We demand that you believe this!"

It is more convincing when people collect legal records and publish evidence which can be regarded as proven by a functional law enforcement and court system. This may definitely be more difficult but it is definitely more convincing, too.

I do neither know Brennan nor the photographers listed on her blacklist. Why should I believe her and a dozen or so other models more than a dozen or so photographers? Okay, I'm geographically quite far away from all these people but honestly... such "blacklists" does not make appetite for working with anybody involved in this.

Because as another poster above you noted, we have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making an accusation.

Stop assuming women are lying about being sexually harassed and assaulted. We get nothing from making that shit up, but we can lose quite literally everything by being honest. We get everything from social ostracizing to actual death threats and MORE harassment and assault for simply making such a claim.

What makes your stomach turn about the idea that a woman who is sexually harassed would actually have the audacity to just say so? Honestly. How can that possibly bother you.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
How many allegations meet your standard?

Zero. Nada. Zilch.

An allegation is exactly that: an allegation.

Obviously a dozen is insufficient, so is there a number that would satisfy you?

If the number of allegations would be linked to the credibility of the allegations the Holy Inquisition would have been right to burn the witches.
There had been many allegations...

ModelMayhem alone has ~ 1,000,000 members.

What would these dozen or more accusers stand to gain by all making false claims?

You can ask this question for any witch hunt...

Again: I do not say this is a witch hunt. I say: as far as I know all these allegations are just that - allegations. Not proven evidence. And I am expected - to avoid the word "demanded" - to believe these allegations and takes sides for one side.

Again: I am a big fan of proven evidence. Of criminal investigations, of court hearings, etc.pp. Because this is the way you get proven and hard evidence. "Blacklists" are not. And even that can bring innocent people to the death row...

You even state it reduces the “appetite for working with anybody involved,” which sadly is a very common response and therefore shows it’s unlikely to lead to more work.

This is my personal feeling and my personal opinion.

In almost 40 years of professional work I have been "warned" by fellow photographers, art directors, bookers, editors etc. by the dozens "Hey! Do not work with this model! Do not hire that model! Avoid this MUA! They are making trouble! They are unreliable! This guy is a blockhead and that girl is a nasty bitch!"

I listen. And I try not get biased.

Because I worked with models someone gave a very bad reputation and I had a great experience... Because I worked with models someone gave a very good reputation and I had a unbelievable bad experience...

I give a lot on references from people I know and whose jugdment I can judge...

Some "references" are just gossip. And as long as I do not know the person who is giving references I am very careful and hesitating to rely on these references.

The problem with not believing the accusers is that it creates an environment where they have nothing to gain and much to lose by coming forward, and it’s that environment which allows the abuse to continue, often for many years.

I am a strong believer in the good old principle of all states of law:

Everybody has to be regarded as innocent until his guilt is proven.

A "blacklist" proves only that somebody is making allegations. No more, no less.

If instead we believe the accusers

We neither should "believe" accusers nor do not believe accusers. An accuser earns an investigation. Not "believe". There are a lot of people in prison despite being innocent because the wrong people just believed an accuser instead of doing their job and investigate.

And I don’t understand the comparison to a dozen or so photographers. What exactly are they hypothetically claiming in your scenario?

I meant the dozen or so photographers on the "blacklist". Honestly I generally try to avoid people who are involved in mud fights. Usually it's difficult to see who is right and who is wrong and very often, life shows, all sides are neither completely right or completely wrong.
But one thing is for sure: if you do not keep sufficient distance to people involved in mud fights chances are high that you get splattered with mud yourself, too.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
The thing that I don't understand is that models will still work, and even defend even the worst predators out there even when there's blacklists, police reports, and a network of people warning others against them.

Theres a number of factors at play.

1) until just VERY recently our blacklists were private. We didn't share them unless someone explicitly asked, and even then if we didn't know the person who was asking we may not share our opinions because predators will actually send their friends to do fake reference checks just to find out who's saying what about them. This very site doesn't let us share our honest experiences unless they're perfectly positive. We're very afraid of exactly what brennan and nicole went through, none of us really have the money for defamation lawsuits. And it's just hard. There's so much ADDED harassment and sometimes assault that comes after sharing your story openly, there's such a serious loss of support in your network, opening up about your experiences can cost you your job, friends, family, etc...so many victims just stay quiet so they can keep living their lives. Theres nothing easy about having a black list and its even less simple if we have to be keeping it hidden.

If we cant openly share these experiences then there will always be someone who simply just does not know. You can google people, sure, but google wont show you private facebook groups and password-locked documents and other ways we've been forced to communicate about bad people. Google cant get behind the closed doors these things are shut up in. There will ALWAYS be someone who didn't, and could not have known any better. We're not nearly connected with one another as a lot of us would like to be, or as we NEED to be.


2) Predators dont prey on EVERYONE, otherwise their bullshit would never fly, they'd immediately be shut out of any community, job, social circle, etc. They make incredibly close friendships with select people, and then eventually when they do hurt someone, they are able to rely on their friends to make sure that person never speaks out, or if they do, that they will not be believed, because a dozen other people are saying "theres no way! hes such a nice guy! he never did that TO ME! You must be a liar!" Nobody wants to believe their friend or family member could be such a hurtful person, thats perfectly natural. You feel betrayed, you have to question your own judgement, you have to question probably years of relationship built with this person and all the effort you put into it and you have to consider it may have meant nothing to them, that you wasted it all on someone horrible. Those are awful feelings. They also never want to believe that they could have just as easily been this persons victim instead, thats a very scary thought we want to do everything we can to avoid. People will do incredible mental gymnastics to maintain that state of denial and self-preservation, and theyd rather think the absolute worst of the persons actual victim, because theyre a stranger, than have to admit the worst about one of their own loved ones. It may even be a survival tactic, depending on who and what the particular abuser is.

You've surely heard women say something along the lines of "I'm not like other girls"? Separating yourself from everyone else is a survival tactic. You see that this person treats the "other girls" in a certain way, so by trying to convince them that you are different from those girls, you're also hoping you can convince them to treat you differently than they treat those other girls. Oftentimes, the way those "other girls" get treated is poorly, and you dont want that. You want to be special to this person, so you try to set yourself apart and make yourself look special, so you'll get the special treatment. You might even go so far as to insist the problem with the "other girls" is that they all somehow bring the poor treatment on themselves so if youre not like them, then the bad things CANT happen to you. Theres a million very subtle ways women are subconsciously pit against each other, you will ALWAYS be able to find at least one who just refuses to believe a persons victim because of SOME kind of tie to the abuser.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Because as another poster above you noted, we have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making an accusation.

Obviously a lot of people seem to gain something of making false accusations because a lot of people are making false accusations. History is full of them...

Again: I do not say these allegations are false. I say: as far as watched this story these allegations are not proven. They are just allegations.

Stop assuming women are lying about being sexually harassed and assaulted.

Where did I do this?

We get nothing from making that shit up, but we can lose quite literally everything by being honest.

Law enforcement in several countries including Germany and the US suppose that up to 30 percent of all allegations regarding rape are false accusations. But whether it's 30 or 20 or 5 percent does not matter. Any single case is one case too much and therefore civilized societies created state of law procedures.

There are many reasons for false accusations. Revenge, anger, jumping on the bandwagon, looking for applause, looking for followers. Accusation of child abuse against the man for instance is a well liked weapon in divorce law suits for some women. (And nowadays men started to use this weapon, too.)

What makes your stomach turn about the idea that a woman who is sexually harassed would actually have the audacity to just say so? Honestly. How can that possibly bother you.

That's not the point. The point is: everybody has to be regarded as innocent until his guilt is proven.

If we ignore this we are straight on the way to burn witches again.

TomFRohwer wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but these guys are not on the "blacklist"...

So as well as this are obviously proven accusations it says nothing regarding the credibility of the famous blacklist.

They probably would have made someone's blacklist if they werent already convicted and actually in jail because...surprise...abusive people are actually abusive and accusers can be believed.

Laura UnBound wrote:

They probably would have made someone's blacklist if they werent already convicted and actually in jail because...surprise...abusive people are actually abusive and accusers can be believed.

And what does that prove except the fact that these two guys had been accused, the cases had been investigated and they were convicted?

Right: nothing.

Laura UnBound wrote:
How exactly am I expected to PROVE someone grabbed my ass? Do I need to be wearing a 360 degree bodycam at all times including when doing a nude shoot because otherwise I'm expected to just take my lumps and keep my mouth shut if I cant provide EVIDENCE of being groped?

How do I PROVE someone propositioned me for sex? Y'all are super cool with being recorded throughout every interaction? You dont mind me being so untrusting of you that I video the whole thing "just in case"? No? Thats not okay? Then I guess I cant prove it and I just have to live with inappropriate and unprofessional advances... cool.


Your requirement for indisputable evidence means that short of a violent rape, everything we endure is nothing more than an "allegation" and you cant possibly tell who to believe.

I am shure you would not like to be thrown into jail or even just "blacklisted" if somebody shouts "Hey - this Laura molested me sexually! Blacklist her!"

I am shure that if you would be accused you would demand: "I want to see some proven evidence! And until you show me that I demand to be regarded as innocent!"

Just a question to you, Laura:

If a man accuses a woman that she had sexually molested him - would you say: "Okay, we have to believe him, he is the victim! Blacklist her, throw her into jail! Evidence? What evidence? How this poor guy shall prove that he had been molested by her? We just have to believe him?"

Honestly - would you think this should be the way to handle accusations regarding sexuall harrassment against women?

I am curious.

(During the witch hunting of the Holy Inquisition they developed an astonishing method to detect whether a woman was a witch or not.
The woman accused to be - maybe - a witch got bind hand and foot and then was thrown into a river or a lake.

If she did not drowned this was the prove that she was a witch and she was burned at the stake.

If she drowned it was proven she was not a witch...

*upps* We are sorry... but sometimes some colleteral damage is unavoidable..)

TomFRohwer wrote:
An allegation is exactly that: an allegation.
.

Your comments sound dangerously like the absurd and outdated principle of innocent until proven guilty.  Don’t you know guilty until proven innocent is the new PC trend these days?

TomFRohwer wrote:
If a man accuses a woman that she had sexually molested him - would you say: "Okay, we have to believe him, he is the victim! Blacklist her, throw her into jail! Evidence? What evidence? How this poor guy shall prove that he had been molested by her? We just have to believe him?"

Honestly - would you think this should be the way to handle accusations regarding sexuall harrassment against women?

I am curious.

To me that one sounds pretty straightforward.

No, we probably would not instantly believe his claim of sexual assault, and not because we're just cruel meanies, but primarily because of ALL of that evidence available to us as a society, which demonstrates that women do not frequently sexually assault men... quite the contrary, ALL the evidence available to us as a society demonstrates that it's actually men who frequently sexually assault women... and other men... and children... and animals... and even freshly-baked apple pies.

So, regardless of that factually-demonstrable information that is conspicuously available to anyone, even though we would have good reason to be VERY skeptical of any such claim, we would proceed to investigate and gather evidence to determine whether this case is one of the rare exceptions in which a woman did, indeed, sexually abuse a man.

However, just because such a finding would still be the rare exception to the proven norm (warning: that link is from a mainstream media outlet, so... y'know... just FYI, 'cuz... well, y'know) doesn't mean that it's any less important to investigate. Even though the entirety of the historical legal canon clearly shows a pattern that proves without a doubt that it is men who are responsible for the vast majority of all crimes ever committed, we are still required to do our due diligence in strict accordance with the letter of the law... and we do.

I mean, on a purely statistical basis, there's gotta be at least one "blacklist' out there somewhere, where male models are warning others about all the female photographers who act inappropriately, right? Shall we all join together now and endeavor to find such a list so that we may expose it? In the name of invoking every bad-faith, false-equivalence narrative we could possibly conceive, is it not in fact our duty to do so?

TomFRohwer wrote:
An allegation is exactly that: an allegation.
.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Your comments sound dangerously like the absurd and outdated principle of innocent until proven guilty.  Don’t you know guilty until proven innocent is the new PC trend these days?

Did someone go to prison solely as a result of being on that list?

Laura UnBound wrote:
How exactly am I expected to PROVE someone grabbed my ass? Do I need to be wearing a 360 degree bodycam at all times including when doing a nude shoot because otherwise I'm expected to just take my lumps and keep my mouth shut if I cant provide EVIDENCE of being groped?

How do I PROVE someone propositioned me for sex? Y'all are super cool with being recorded throughout every interaction? You dont mind me being so untrusting of you that I video the whole thing "just in case"? No? Thats not okay? Then I guess I cant prove it and I just have to live with inappropriate and unprofessional advances... cool.


Your requirement for indisputable evidence means that short of a violent rape, everything we endure is nothing more than an "allegation" and you cant possibly tell who to believe.

Spot on.

The lesson of 50 years of catholic priests fucking our kids, the residential schools beating and raping, hollywood moguls focing fellatio at every chance they get is that, when there is a power imbalance, we need to start with the assumption that the accuser should be believed.

I often disagree with your posts but on this thread IMHO you have it exactly right.

TomFRohwer wrote:
I am shure you would not like to be thrown into jail or even just "blacklisted" if somebody shouts "Hey - this Laura molested me sexually! Blacklist her!"

I am shure that if you would be accused you would demand: "I want to see some proven evidence! And until you show me that I demand to be regarded as innocent!"

This is literally never a thing that I worry about. Not once. I've never thought that a photographer or other model would falsely accuse me of any kind of misconduct on a shoot or in our messages or anything like that because I purposefully work to make sure I'm not a shitty person doing horrible things to people. I'm more likely to get hit by lightning than I am to be falsely accused. So are you. I cant remember the last time I legitimately worried about a lightning strike either.

Just a question to you, Laura:

If a man accuses a woman that she had sexually molested him - would you say: "Okay, we have to believe him, he is the victim! Blacklist her, throw her into jail! Evidence? What evidence? How this poor guy shall prove that he had been molested by her? We just have to believe him?"

Honestly - would you think this should be the way to handle accusations regarding sexuall harrassment against women?

I am curious.

First of all, a tumblr blacklist and literal jail are entirely different things. In an attempt to paint my reactions as hysterical and overreaching you've gone overboard yourself.

Secondly, why WOULDN'T I believe a male victim of harassment or assault? This is no clever "gotcha". I believe victims, victimhood has no gender. Why do I keep focusing on women being the victims of men? Because in this specific context we're discussing the internet modeling industry where most models are women, most photographers are men, (younger women and older men, to boot) and the model is more likely to be victimized than the photographer. If you want to talk to me about parts of society where men are equally or more likely to be victimized by women then you'll hear me say the same thing - believe victims.

(During the witch hunting of the Holy Inquisition they developed an astonishing method to detect whether a woman was a witch or not.
The woman accused to be - maybe - a witch got bind hand and foot and then was thrown into a river or a lake.

If she did not drowned this was the prove that she was a witch and she was burned at the stake.

If she drowned it was proven she was not a witch...

*upps* We are sorry... but sometimes some colleteral damage is unavoidable..)

You're so obsessed with this witch hunt imagery which is amazing considering the actual victims of witch hunts were also women often convicted and sentenced at the hands of powerful men and the reason people thought these women were witches were that they had the audacity to be smart, outspoken, different women who "didnt know their place". You were accused of witchcraft for simply being an easy target (single, poor, unliked by your neighbors, etc) You were accused of witchcraft simply for being a woman because there is rampant sexism in the idea that females are "more susceptible to sin". You could be a witch for having too many women friends or too few women friends, for being too rich or too poor, for having too many kids or no kids, because you were too young or too old.... you were a witch for any reason at all, you were a witch for being an imperfect example of the female gender. Tell me how any one of these absolute absurdities even remotely compares to being propositioned for sex, being verbally harassed, being physically harassed, being touched without your consent, being forced to witness the other person in whatever state of undress without your consent, being videotaped without your clothes on without your consent, being stalked, etc etc.