Louis CK

This isn't about consent, its an article about someone's behavior that many would find objectionable and improper.

Consent is about a crime; the Times reported about someone's behavior. They didn't advocate for him being prosecuted.

This is journalism at its best, not worst. They are bringing facts to the audience, the audience is then to decide.

IMHO, this behavior, alleged by credible named sources, and then compared to his episode and then now corroborated by others, is improper and outside our social norms and should not be tolerated. Yes, bring his behavior under scrutiny and judge.

What have we lost as a society? The understanding that your actions have consequences, the scrutiny of your family, your peers, those you come in contact with, work with. You should know that how you conduct yourself will be evaluated. That's historically been the best motivation for keeping behavior within society's norms. I remember being told "don't embarrass your parents/family". When people lose the obligation to the family/community, they feel free to conduct themselves otherwise. IMHO, its not about the police, its about society's scrutiny that keeps people in line.

Question for me is would I want to be around someone who jerks off in front of women who do not encourage, do not want to see that (even if they don't say anything immediately), frankly would say no if given the chance? No. Even not criminal, think of your mom/wife/sister/daughter being subjected to that unsolicited. That's not someone I want to socialize with, not someone I want to work with, not someone I want to live near.

 

I haven't read the whole thread here, so my comments may be redundant.

Forget who the famous person is. The act itself is deplorable. The fact that it is CK doesn't make it less so. If anyone saw a homeless person jacking off in the street, they'd be disgusted. Some of the people who experienced CK doing this might have laughed a bit at the time, but they were probably haunted forever afterwards by having seen something really fucked up.

Same goes for Trump as it does for CK. Both have done things beyond social norms.

Ask this: how many people have jacked off in front of you in real life (not counting yourself, or any actual bedroom act with a partner)?

I bet the answer is probably ZERO for most people, unless you got involved in something stupid at a fraternity.

 

It’s newsworthy - in the national paper of record - that he has a sexual interest outside the narrowly defined norm? What year is this? The New York Times is not Louis C.K.’s priest.

 

Maybe CK and Spacey should hookup.

 

What hill are you willing to die? Sounds like you want to determine what is newsworthy or not? Isn't that what the "marketplace of ideas" is for?

If its not newsworthy, don't read the NYT, don't buy it. Its not that complicated.

Why do you care what other people read? Just say it has no substance to you.

You are coming off as someone who wants prior restraint, stop publishing before it is released. That's not directly counter to the First Amendment. (Of course I know you're not part of the government.)

 

That's the same argument I have heard about the National Enquirer. Funny how it is raised for both the National Enquirer and the New York Times in today's climate.

Wait. "Funny" might not have been the word I was looking for there.

 

Why does "I don't agree with your interpretation" morph into "and you're a bad person, too."

(And I happen to agree with your interpretation.)

 

I didn't say anything about the person. I said the opinion is creepy and misogynistic because it is. It is refusing to acknowledge that tepid verbal consent coerced by power dynamics does not justify harassment.

 

This is a ludicrous mischaracterization of Dick's position. He's not remotely suggested the NYT should be censored or barred from reporting on the story, but he has suggested it should've done a better job of it (for example, by not being so oddly vague on the core issue of consent). None of this discussion has anything whatsoever to do with issues of "prior restraint."

 

I took his opinion that it was not newsworthy as his reason not to print. If I was wrong I admit it.

 

So what? Even if he does believe that, it still wouldn't make it a prior restraint issue. Prior restraint is about outside forces suppressing speech for reasons wholly unrelated to a paper's subjective decision regarding whether a story is "newsworthy." It has no relevance to any of this.

 

I’m sure the marketplace would support any number of stories about celebrity sexual fetishes. That doesn’t mean the New York Times should run them all. I’ve said that it’s pretty clear C.K. was doing something untoward, not least of which possibly having women blackballed for gossiping about him. But, holy shit, are they vague with the reporting, and that’s a huge issue. Rick thinks it’s misogynistic to demand more, though. And he says the “power dynamics” prove coercion here. But, hell, the piece is even incredibly vague about the power dynamics. He’s famous, so he can’t come onto women?