TomFRohwer wrote:
"The model says in the lawsuit that he was “terrified and repulsed” during the photo shoot, but felt that he had to “nail” the opportunity because of Weber’s status as one of the preeminent photographers in the fashion industry (...)"

With other words: first he thought it to be a good idea to use the "casting couch" for promoting his career and now he is jumping on the "metoo" bandwaggon...

Super high moral standards...

Can you explain to me how you arrived at your position here?  I read the article and I don't see how he was using the opportunity as a casting couch.  His agent told him he had to nail it.  From what I've gathered he was put in the same position as most women in this situation.  Harassment is not gender specific.

Have you ever been put in a position where you thought to yourself, "Shit!  I should have said this or done that, etc."?
He didn't acquiesce to anything that happened.

Rob Photosby wrote:
The link offers plenty of allegations but no proof.  The allegations may (or may not) be true, but everyone is at risk when allegations alone are sufficient to damage careers (or worse).

Very true.  False accusations are terrible.  Does being a no-name model man or woman automatically deem someone as a fame seeker?

Yosh Studio wrote:
Im surprised it has taken this long. I have heard stories about Weber since the 90's from male models invited to those weekend get togethers at his hacienda   

when there is that much smoke, you know there is a fire

That's very true. It's one thing to  joke with your buddies (there goes Steve again!) , and in those cases smoke might just be smoke. But in an industry where reputation is key, and people are afraid to lose their own for reporting things that actually did happen, I have a hard time believing too many people are dumb enough to risk reporting things that didn't happen.

Some people really are that stupid. But I'd like to think most aren't.

Zack Zoll wrote:

That's very true. It's one thing to  joke with your buddies (there goes Steve again!) , and in those cases smoke might just be smoke. But in an industry where reputation is key, and people are afraid to lose their own for reporting things that actually did happen, I have a hard time believing too many people are dumb enough to risk reporting things that didn't happen.

Some people really are that stupid. But I'd like to think most aren't.

Yes and I think guys are even more reluctant to report this type of behavior than girls.

I remember Bruce's creepy CK commercial that got banned back in the 90s. It looked like porn audition/interviews with creepy Q&A...something right off of Boogie Nights

Zack Zoll wrote:
in an industry where reputation is key, and people are afraid to lose their own for reporting things that actually did happen, I have a hard time believing too many people are dumb enough to risk reporting things that didn't happen.

This happens all the time. Again and again.

TomFRohwer wrote:
This happens all the time. Again and again.

you are linking McCarthyism to a photographer (admittedly a great photographer) who is known within the industry for pushing models' boundaries. you should research more before posting such a stupid connection.

Rob Photosby wrote:
The link offers plenty of allegations but no proof.  The allegations may (or may not) be true, but everyone is at risk when allegations alone are sufficient to damage careers (or worse).

Jules NYC wrote:
Very true.  False accusations are terrible.  Does being a no-name model man or woman automatically deem someone as a fame seeker?

No, but it also doesn't mean that the no-name model's accusations are true.  The real answer is "we don't know".

I strongly hate "guilty by accusation" -- if there is a single accusation, then in my mind there is a 50% - 50% chance of it being true (or false).  Therefore, it is a non-story.

Now, if multiple credible non-models come out with similar stories / accusations, well, then the scales of justice might start a-tipping.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
No, but it also doesn't mean that the no-name model's accusations are true.  The real answer is "we don't know".

I strongly hate "guilty by accusation" -- if there is a single accusation, then in my mind there is a 50% - 50% chance of it being true (or false).  Therefore, it is a non-story.

Now, if multiple non-models come out with similar stories / accusations, well, then the scales of justice might start a-tipping.

Ok, but tell me if not getting $ by a lawsuit would a model want to falsely accuse a photographer of all of this?  Obviously to get 'recognized' and have a buzz around them?  The accuser gets his/her name & image splashed all over?  Ok, I 'get' it, but I'm sure many people in the industry would be afraid to work with that person.  I see absolutely NO glory in getting attention/publicity (even if it's bad, which can be 'good' they say) from mixing oneself in this bullshit.

Every time I think of this model, I won't remember his for his dashing good looks (errrr... he's ok I guess ... meh) but I will certainly remember him for Bruce allegedly wanting for him to rub one out in front of him.  Blargh!

Jules NYC wrote:

Ok, but tell me if not getting $ by a lawsuit would a model want to falsely accuse a photographer of all of this?  Obviously to get 'recognized' and have a buzz around them?  The accuser gets his/her name & image splashed all over?  Ok, I 'get' it, but I'm sure many people in the industry would be afraid to work with that person.  I see absolutely NO glory in getting attention/publicity (even if it's bad, which can be 'good' they say) from mixing oneself in this bullshit.

Every time I think of this model, I won't remember his for his dashing good looks (errrr... he's ok I guess ... meh) but I will certainly remember him for Bruce allegedly wanting for him to rub one out in front of him.  Blargh!

I wouldn't want to work with that person!

Jules NYC wrote:
Every time I think of this model, I won't remember his for his dashing good looks (errrr... he's ok I guess ... meh) but I will certainly remember him for Bruce allegedly wanting for him to rub one out in front of him.  Blargh!

Jules NYC wrote:
Ok, but tell me if not getting $ by a lawsuit would a model want to falsely accuse a photographer of all of this?  Obviously to get 'recognized' and have a buzz around them?  The accuser gets his/her name & image splashed all over?  Ok, I 'get' it, but I'm sure many people in the industry would be afraid to work with that person.  I see absolutely NO glory in getting attention/publicity (even if it's bad, which can be 'good' they say) from mixing oneself in this bullshit.

In my experience, people use both the legal justice system and the "court of public opinion" for all sorts of reason, and as a card carrying skeptic, I am not prone to believe (or disbelieve) people who make accusations. 

I do agree that a so-called model might be committing career suicide by using this alleged dispute for publicity.

I do know that there are some folks on these forums are often quick to recommend legal action and other foolish (to me) tactics.  In my experience, only lawyers win in court cases, and pretty much everyone loses in the court of public opinion.

Jules NYC wrote:
Every time I think of this model, I won't remember his for his dashing good looks (errrr... he's ok I guess ... meh) but I will certainly remember him for Bruce allegedly wanting for him to rub one out in front of him.  Blargh!

Yosh Studio wrote:

kickfight wrote:
We are at a point now where we can pretty much detect cynicism and bad faith masquerading as claims of "objectivity" from a mile away... very few are naive enough to continue falling for that bullshit non-position anymore, because most of us have seen it exploited to death by the duplicitous and dishonest to forward their own agenda... it oozes from the same cesspool as whataboutism and "devil's advocate" arguments and "teach the controversy" tactics and other similar smoke+mirrors tricks.

If Weber's just a great ol' guy who has been falsely and unfairly accused of harassment by "opportunists", then he should welcome this opportunity to defend his good name in court.

Or he's just fucked regardless, because the system's rigged, and there's no hope of justice for anyone ever, so whatever who cares fuck it all we're all doomed.

OR maybe he's just another abuser who is being held to account for his misbehavior, as it should be.

Should be interesting to observe nonetheless. We'll see how it goes.

You've said the first bit many times, but I'm afraid you're just not right. I wish you were.

How many people stood by Bill Cosby for months as he did exactly as you say? Shit, there are people that STILL believe him, and that whole thing kicked off well before people started shouting 'fake news' at everything they didn't like. It's not exactly gotten any easier since then.

We as a society are indeed much smarter than we used to be - no doubt. The problem is that the gulf between how smart we are and how smart we THINK we are has gotten even bigger.

I blame procedural TV shows with snarky geniuses like House and Sherlock. Not entirely of course, but I think they played a huge part in thinking our untrained gut knows more than expert sources.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Trial by Social media is repugnant to me and at least to me smacks of the Salem Witch Trials.

I agree.

People seem to turn off their brains and just spout whatever comes to mind. If they are forced to consider anything else, they complain to moderators.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
I hate that those in power in any walk of life would use their power to abuse and denigrate those they are working with. If those accused are guilty they should suffer whatever they legally have coming to them. If Webber is truly innocent he should seek to clear his name and sue the modelfor defamation. Not for the money that he won't make from a verdict but for the truth to come out.

The only problem with the "me too" movement is that people are accusing others, often times after twenty or thirty years and sometimes even anominously, without the accused being able to defend themselves.  The 6th amendment of the constitution allows for the accused to face their accuser, it is a tennent  of law that sought to eliminate false accusations and secret trials in abstencia. 

Trial by Social media is repugnant to me and at least to me smacks of the Salem Witch Trials.

Know the story of woman accused of witchcraft and burned to death by her neighbours ?
I think about 2yrs ago

kickfight wrote:
We are at a point now where we can pretty much detect cynicism and bad faith masquerading as claims of "objectivity" from a mile away... very few are naive enough to continue falling for that bullshit non-position anymore, because most of us have seen it exploited to death by the duplicitous and dishonest to forward their own agenda... it oozes from the same cesspool as whataboutism and "devil's advocate" arguments and "teach the controversy" tactics and other similar smoke+mirrors tricks.

If Weber's just a great ol' guy who has been falsely and unfairly accused of harassment by "opportunists", then he should welcome this opportunity to defend his good name in court.

Or he's just fucked regardless, because the system's rigged, and there's no hope of justice for anyone ever, so whatever who cares fuck it all we're all doomed.

OR maybe he's just another abuser who is being held to account for his misbehavior, as it should be.

Should be interesting to observe nonetheless. We'll see how it goes.

Zack Zoll wrote:
You've said the first bit many times, but I'm afraid you're just not right. I wish you were.

Yeah, I don't know about that. I mean, a whole mess of people keep saying that this is some kind of sudden bandwagon that everyone's suddenly jumping aboard. Does it really feel like that, honestly... or does it feel more like a dam breaking in semi-slow-motion, where that final crack pretty much broke everything loose? It's the people who keep saying that it's just bandwagon-jumping who are now making themselves totally conspicuous by sticking to predictable reactionary talking points that reveal a narrow pattern of instruction, not just on this issue but on pretty much any newsworthy topic.

Zack Zoll wrote:
How many people stood by Bill Cosby for months as he did exactly as you say? Shit, there are people that STILL believe him, and that whole thing kicked off well before people started shouting 'fake news' at everything they didn't like. It's not exactly gotten any easier since then.

But look at the people who stood by him then, and look at the people who still stand by him. Were/are they credible in any way then OR now? I mean, the only thing that's really changed is that they've either become real low key, hoping that nobody remembers how they stood by him in spite of everything, or they've dug in and doubled down on defending him, becoming even less credible than before. They're the kind of people in every debacle that are apparently willing to go down with the ship.... I guess out of a misguided sense of maintaining ideological purity at all costs or something.

Zack Zoll wrote:
We as a society are indeed much smarter than we used to be - no doubt. The problem is that the gulf between how smart we are and how smart we THINK we are has gotten even bigger.

Well, sure, but we also have another problem that may be much worse: how stupid people need to pretend to be in order to simply cozy up to a particular ideological position, vs. how stupid people really must be in order to totally fall for a particular ideological position.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I blame procedural TV shows with snarky geniuses like House and Sherlock. Not entirely of course, but I think they played a huge part in thinking our untrained gut knows more than expert sources.

OK, but those characters are at least depicted as being hugely flawed in most other aspects of their personalities, so it's not like they're anything to emulate. The issue here is ostensibly normal people being willfully dishonest by adopting ---no, consuming is actually the best term, because ready-made ideology is really a retail product at this stage--- a pre-packaged collection of contrarian stances that just feel right. Colbert had it right... it's the lure of simple truthiness.

At this stage, none of this is mysterious or oblique or novel. It's actually a pretty obvious dick move that can be seen from space, because it's so damn blatant. In fact, showing it off to others as blatantly as possible may be part of the consumer thrill, like being in the throes of midlife crisis or something.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
>>>>>  Tangent Alert  >>>>>

Does the answer change if the alleged sexual harassment happened decades ago?

Likely.  Most states have a statute of limitations for filing claims.

https://employment-law.freeadvice.com/e … ations.htm

Laura UnBound wrote:
oh good, this thread's exactly as disgusting as I thought it was going to be.

+1

Jules NYC wrote:
What Weber allegedly did is disgusting.
That's why it's easy to remember the action and the person together in that light.

To my point, why would anyone want to be remembered with all of that if it weren't true?
There's more creative ways to make headlines than a cheap accusation.

Who really knows what happened but a reputation sticks to a person like glue.

To my point, why would anyone want to be remembered with all of that if it weren't true?
Answer:MONEY
Bruce Webber has deep pockets $14 Mil ?

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:

Know the story of woman accused of witchcraft and burned to death by her neighbours ?

common to arrest, torture, kill 'witches' in Saudi Arabia. Govt agencies/law enforcement have witchcraft offices.
I think about 2yrs ago

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:

To my point, why would anyone want to be remembered with all of that if it weren't true?
Answer:MONEY
Bruce Webber has deep pockets $14 Mil ?

Still has to be proven in court.  It's even more daunting because with all that money, seems like the person with the upper hand is Bruce, not some model who may have a hard time coughing up an attorney's fee (s).

I think it's pretty lame to automatically think an accuser is lying just because the perp has more financial means and power than the other.  Yeah, this model came from whateverville and now he/she is trying to get all of his/her money!  I just don't buy it.

Are there people who falsely accuse?  Yes.
I'm just saying every accusation should have due process.

The company I work for had a timely article on harassment.  Some people have the courage to talk about it.  As for fighting it?  I wrote this:

People are afraid to be black-balled, lose their jobs or create an atmosphere where people are afraid to work with them. Sad, but true. Even more daunting with 'At Will Employment'. Then where's the due process? A hearing with unemployment? Sue a 10 Billion-dollar company? Most pass the scenarios and decide to suck it up until they find another job.

Yosh Studio wrote:
The duck test – "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" 
This duck has been walking around for decades

Jules NYC wrote:

and could be just lurking around Bear Pond...

Yosh Studio wrote:

and could be just lurking around Bear Pond...

lol!