If I'm reading it correctly, this isn't a criminal case; no one's trying to put Dr. Luke in jail. If the only issue to be decided by the court is whether Kesha should be held to her contract, it makes sense to me to use a preponderance-of-evidence (i.e., who do you believe) standard.

Notice how there's no one attacking Sony for the way it treats the musicians (George Michael comes to mind) under its umbrella? Pretty much like with The Mouse, no one wants to get on the bad side of Sony's corporate lawyers.

But it is a serious blight on Dr. Luke's reputation. Count me among those who think Kesha's a fucking liar.

If you're sexually assaulted, you take the appropriate actions to have your assailant charged. You don't simply sit on it until you decide you want out of your contract, are told no, and then bring out the allegations in order to be let out of your contract.

Right, she wants to get out of her contract. But note how all these women are all "I believe."

Patrick is right.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that a sexual assault happened. I don't know.

I just think, as Patrick lays out how things could have happened, that this is a little suspicious.

You get assaulted and you . . . want to break a contract? How the heck does that follow? You don't want to put your assailant in jail? You just want to break contract with a third party? Could Sony just offer her another producer to work with? The story just doesn't make sense to me.

So, if/when he is helping with your career it isn't assault and he is cool to party with.

But, when you are finished using him to elevate your career it becomes assault and he is a pig.

Did I get that right?

Reminds me of how they used Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearing circus.

"If you're sexually assaulted, you take the appropriate actions to have your assailant charged. You don't simply sit on it until you decide you want out of your contract, are told no, and then bring out the allegations in order to be let out of your contract."

You're making a really big assumption here--that sexual assault victims act rationally. That is rarely the case.

It seems that most rapists personally know their victims and most victims stay quiet on the matter. It isn't until they feel "pushed" for whatever reason to come forward that they MIGHT do it. I've always hated how because someone waited a long time to make the accusation it must be invalid, when we know that's exactly how victims tend to act. Keesha is acting exactly in the matter that someone that was raped would act- waiting years to come forward--whether you believe her or not is up to you.

The problem with sex crimes is that they can't be proven very well so if you are the type of person that forms their opinion on what the court says you'll be very disappointed. That goes BOTH ways, rapists often go free, innocent men often get charged, and other times the correct man gets jailed.

. I believe Keesha as Dr. Luke has had that reputation (a la Cosby) for years. It's my personal opinion which doesn't need to be based on court evidence. I hold this opinion of other celebrities too.

What I find interesting is who the public wishes to crucify and who it chooses to let go. R Kelly has way better evidence that he's a serial child rapist yet he has massive support.

Had she filed a police report I would have more sympathy.

I find it amazing that these so called victims can tell civil liability lawyers, talk show hosts, everyone under the sun about their ordeal. Everyone that is except the cops and DA.

If you can tell a room full of people all about it, why can't you do it in a court room?

Ppen,

I agree these are hard things to prove. And I'm so clueless I don't know a Kesha or a Dr. Luke from Adam. I can even understand that if this did happen why Kesha isn't taking it to a DA. Something that happened years ago that can't be proved would be a waste of everyone's time. But since it clearly isn't going to be proven why should she be able to break her contract with Sony? Also, is she required by contract to work with Dr. Luke? Can't Sony provide another producer? The solution doesn't fit the problem.

It seems that most rapists personally know their victims and most victims stay quiet on the matter. It isn't until they feel "pushed" for whatever reason to come forward that they MIGHT do it. I've always hated how because someone waited a long time to make the accusation it must be invalid, when we know that's exactly how victims tend to act. Keesha is acting exactly in the matter that someone that was raped would act- waiting years to come forward--whether you believe her or not is up to you.

Unsupported assertion.

I'm gonna predict her next release will be a smash #1 hit. As the sage said, never let a crisis go to waste.

As far as what happened: I wasn't there, I don't know, I didn't see it.

Celebrity spells her name "Ke$ha" and we're supposed to believe she's Mary Ann Summers scampering around in virginal ignorance on Gilligan's Island or Hollywood or wherever?

Spare me the crocodile tears and matching Escalade seat covers.

They're two hustlers fighting over the spoils. Just my opinion, of course.

@Ben Sony has already offered to let her work w/ another producer.

I obviously don't know if she'd been assaulted, and understand that many women don't choose to pursue charges immediately.

What makes me suspicious in this case though is that she'd previously disavowed these claims in a deposition and is handling this whole thing like a publicity campaign. She's also made public claims about her contract that aren't true and appear designed to garner sympathy. And the claims in her lawsuit are so overwrought that they just don't seem credible.

Thank you Mmm. To me that answers it. Sony didn't assault her. She says she has a problem with Dr. Luke. Sony says she doesn't have to work with him. At that point there is no reason for Sony to break their contract. That Kesha wants a better deal now has nothing to do with any assault that may or may not have happened.

"Keesha is acting exactly in the matter that someone that was raped would act- waiting years to come forward--"

So you're saying we should disbelieve any woman who comes forward right away? Okay!

Oh, you're not saying that? You want us to believe every woman, because no matter what she does or doesn't do, it proves she's a True Victim?

Yeah, whatever.

I said you from your OWN FUCKING OPINION dee Nile.

Why is it that on this blog it becomes a black and white thing when it comes to issues like this? It's called nuance.

Oh ppen you're saying we must believe every woman or disavow every woman?? I said when it comes to rape you form whatever opinion you want because if you rely on the court to give it to you you're gonna be sorely disappointed. Innocent men often get wrongly imprisoned and guilty men often go free.

Sex crimes are one of those nasty human interactions that the courts aren't good at policing. I don't rely on them to form my opinions---especially when it comes to celebrities.

And Patrick sit your ass with a social worker one day so they can tell you what the common theme among rape victims is. They keep their mouth shuts. The only ones that come forward are middle class women.

If she was, in fact, assaulted then I'm sorry for her, HOWEVER...

something is fishy here. If Sony offered to let her work with another producer, then there is no reason for them to break her contract. Her plastering this all over the news with no intention of actually going after him makes me call shenanigans.

My suspicion is she's a one hit wonder and this is a last gasp attempt at keeping her name in the papers.

Here's a fun opinion none of you seem to consider.

I believe he raped her. He has had the "rapist" reputation for years on gossip sites. Yes on gossip sites there are known Hollywood rapists---guys who have the reputation.

I believe she purposely kept her mouth shut because of $. That's right rape victims can be bought out too.

Once her sales slipped and she wanted a new contract that's when she got angry and that's when she felt compelled to come forward about the rape.

He has had the "rapist" reputation for years on gossip sites.

And yet, no charges. I dont feel sorry for crime victims who refuse to report it to the cops, even if nothing can be done in YOUR case it helps to show a pattern, it helps to put rapists on cops radar

Yes on gossip sites there are known Hollywood rapists---guys who have the reputation.

And knowing these rumors women still go into private rooms, why should I feel sorry for morons?

I believe she purposely kept her mouth shut because of $. That's right rape victims can be bought out too.

If you accept money for sex that doenst make you a rape victim, it makes you a hooker

It still makes you a rape victim. Accepting money for being raped has been the human way of dealing with rape since well always. Somehow there is this idea that modern humans are above that and when they are victims of crimes theyre supposed to act with a moral courage and fortitude they never possesed previously. Why? Victims can be shitty cowardly people too.

I believe he raped her. He has had the "rapist" reputation for years on gossip sites.

Ooooh, now there's a reliable source of information. Did you believe every single rumor you heard in high school, too?

I have no sympathy for, nor do I extend credibility to, a supposed rape victim who refuses to report the crime, but is willing to talk about it on "gossip sites." And I don't mind adding that the fact that you visit such things seriously degrades you. As for these supposed rape victims who spill their guts on such sites, if they're so willing to talk about it, then they should talk about it to the police.

You mean it degrades me in YOUR eyes.

So basically it means I'm still a super awesome person.

And it isn't the victims going on these sites. It's just people working in the industry, talking about the rumors surrounding a particular producer or celebrity. Duke has had that rep for years. Cosby and Kelly had it too. Other producers just have the rep of cheating on their wives or beating them (P diddy) but not rape.

And it isn't the victims going on these sites. It's just people working in the industry, talking about the rumors surrounding a particular producer or celebrity.

Which makes it even less credible. It's not what the actual celebrities are saying happened to them. It's what the wagtongues around them are saying they said happened to them.

Whether she was raped or not is irrelevant since she isn't going to the police. It should and did have no effect on breaking her contract with Sony since they aren't even the ones accused of raping her.

I dont feel sorry for crime victims who refuse to report it to the cops, even if nothing can be done in YOUR case it helps to show a pattern, it helps to put rapists on cops radar

I'm with Ppen on this. We've been dealing with this same issue in astronomy as reports of sexual harassers have come to light. "But why didn't people report?", everyone says.

Well, let's see how this played out at my graduate program which housed one of the notorious ones (there are stories about him going back a quarter of a century). Student complains; undergrad or grad advisor says "I'll take care of it" then either has a brief conversation with the harasser or does nothing. No record is kept so the next time someone comes along and the advisor has changed, the same scenario plays out. Finally, after decades, a report makes its way above the department level, at which point the university says "We can't do anything; he has tenure." How did they finally get rid of him (retirement, not firing)?: they shamed him into going away by stating that he couldn't interact with students except with another faculty member as a minder.

So yes, I am not pleased with the crappy Title IX reporting system and public airing of stories that are finally the way to get rid of a total asshole like Geoff Marcy but this idea that because the only thing on record is a seemingly minor issue of unwanted kissing, everyone rushes to "the women are lying/overreacting/conspiratorial etc." is ridiculous.

So as Ppen says, some nuance would be appreciated. The legal system is not able to handle sexual crime because of its ambiguity and typical lack of witnesses. This is partly why everyone gets so exercised about it.

Does that mean I automatically believe all accusers? Of course not, but I do note that we all prefer hard questions to go away and one way we do so is assume people who make awkward accusations are lying and try to keep that in mind when I weigh the evidence.

@ Astra & ppen - forgive me, but I call BS on the whole 'girls are scared to complain' meme.

Maybe 25 years ago, but not anymore.

Regarding the story of the serial harasser - pardon me, but when did women become so incapable? Whatever happened to the old-fashioned response of 'get your f*cking hands off me, you filthy pervert!' accompanied by plenty of yelling and screaming and kicking? Don't tell me that women are 'scared' of the consequences to their career or education, because that's simply nonsense today. We see cases virtually daily where just the word of a female accuser is enough to get a man - any man - fired, disgraced and sometimes charged. Nobel prizewinner - doesn't matter. Tenured professor? Doesn't matter. No man is immune to these charges anymore. So don't tell me that women are afraid to come forward these days in these situations.

ppen wrote:

'I believe he raped her. He has had the "rapist" reputation for years on gossip sites. Yes on gossip sites there are known Hollywood rapists---guys who have the reputation.

I believe she purposely kept her mouth shut because of $. That's right rape victims can be bought out too.

Once her sales slipped and she wanted a new contract that's when she got angry and that's when she felt compelled to come forward about the rape.'

So many concepts there to dislike. But what it boils down to is this - whether or not something is 'rape' or 'harrassment' is solely at the discretion of the woman, forever. Her accusation, at any time, simply makes it so. And she is at liberty to make that accusation at any time, for any reason that is to her advantage (including, as we see here, as a negotiation tactic in a contract dispute) and she must be believed. And, of course, anonymous gossip on the Internet is cast-iron evidence of criminal behavior.

Her civil suit against him does not prove anything - it's just another expression of her allegations, for which she has no proof. It's just another negotiating tactic - she's using the allegation in one business negotiation already, why not in another?

If she had the slightest scintilla of proof, she would take it to the police. She no longer has the excuse of being ashamed, she's blabbed this story to anyone who will listen and the media is full of it. But that's not what she wants. She wants to use the accusation for its social and business clout, without having to show in any way that it's actually true.

At this point, there is simply no way to say whether or not anything a) unlawful or b) in breach of her contract with Sony has occurred. It cannot be known. She has no proof, or at least, none that she will reveal. She has already denied it in the past, but now insists it is, in fact, true. So she's a proven liar. Since she will not make any specific accusation, he cannot refute the allegation with testable evidence.

And you want a person like this to be advantaged by this sort of behavior?

If I were Sony, I would release her from her contract, and say why, in the most direct terms. In a reasonable world, no other recording company would touch her with a 10-foot pole, since she has shown that contracts she makes mean nothing to her and she will use any means, fair or foul, to avoid performance whenever it suits her.

llater

llamas

Her name is pronounced Keh-shuh.

I wish scientists would get down to the root of things: how is the truth of differing claims of the same (alleged) personal interaction determined?

Or at least some resources:

If (you know/think) you've been raped, here are the explicit steps to take to ensure you have a credible police report in the event you go to court.

This is the clinical definition of rape, typical effects on the human body (bruising, emotional effects, bodily fluids), ways that the former might not manifest.

Here are ways to increase the odds that you won't have an unpleasant experience, either being taken advantage of at any level, or being accused of something you don't think you did or know you didn't do. These are behavioral aids, not moral or ethical guidelines, so if you have a victim mentality or don't want to be inconvenienced by altering your own behavior or mind (example: fear is a gift, but in these times many people (anecdotally) act in ridiculous ways because of it), accept the consequences. You can count on the world to be ambiguous, and acting/thinking too carefully or not carefully enough is a risk you must assume.

Clarifying last paragraph: I think the young woman who fellated the incapacitated young man at UMass Amherst then got HIM expelled for rape deserves a special place in a Hell I don't believe in, but no amount of righteous outrage directed at her can alter what happened, nor change the fact that, in theory, he might have predicted that knowing her would ruin his life.

"Of course not, but I do note that we all prefer hard questions to go away and one way we do so is assume people who make awkward accusations are lying."

But an equally invalid way of ignoring hard questions is to assume all who are accused (if they are of a politically disfavored group) are guilty. Historically, we know the results of that.

But an equally invalid way of ignoring hard questions is to assume all who are accused (if they are of a politically disfavored group) are guilty. Historically, we know the results of that.

I agree. That's why I said I was uncomfortable with the use of Title IX to process these cases. And I really hate that if someone makes a sexual approach it's finally actionable but garden-variety bullying and harassment has no recourse. However, when people defend the principle of the presumption of innocence, it would be nice if there could be a little attention paid to the price that is paid and who has to pay it. A lot of people avoid that discussion by painting all accusers as liars or opportunists.

And llamas, I'm not saying (with regard to sexual harassment) that all harassed women are too scared to report, but that on balance when it comes to a cost-benefit analysis, it's not clear it's worth it. Geoff Marcy resigned (not fired) but that took leaking his investigation to the press and getting his peers to ask him to leave. The other harassers in my field, publicly known and not known, are still working, still tenured, still sitting on review and grant panels, still writing rec letters, etc. We are not a large field and you can bet a rep for reporting sexual harassment is going to stick to you throughout your career and likely to no gain.

I'm glad I've never had to deal with this dilemma because I don't know what I would do.

"as Ppen says, some nuance would be appreciated. The legal system is not able to handle sexual crime because of its ambiguity and typical lack of witnesses. This is partly why everyone gets so exercised about it."

In a perfect world, everyone would be a mind reader and easily able to distinguish truth from fiction, and sexual harassment and rape from temporarily unwanted attention.

People do shitty things that aren't exactly illegal or are ambiguous in their intent or perceived intent all the time.

We have a tenancy to personalize these incidents, and lose our perspective when they happen to us.

Yes, I was much more easily intimidated when I was younger, and probably agreed to some stuff, or was polite to a harasser when I shouldn't have been.

You know what? It isn't up to the police, the university administration, or mommy and daddy to make the world a totally safe space for my feelings.

I don't want to see annoying behavior criminalized and I want to see all but the actual rapists, by force or threats, pretty much get away with it.

You know why? Because I don't want to live in the kind of Orwellian police state that would be required to suppress and punish all this behavior, and the selective vindictive prosecutions that come along with a society of nanny statists punishing their political enemies for the exact same bahvior they have gotten away with for years.

This is why Hillary is such a flaming hypocrite. Along with being an incompetent boob.

Isab,

"It isn't up to the police, the university administration, or mommy and daddy to make the world a totally safe space for my feelings.

I don't want to see annoying behavior criminalized and I want to see all but the actual rapists, by force or threats, pretty much get away with it.

You know why? Because I don't want to live in the kind of Orwellian police state that would be required to suppress and punish all this behavior, and the selective vindictive prosecutions that come along with a society of nanny statists punishing their political enemies for the exact same bahvior they have gotten away with for years."

Well said! Nail. Head. Hit.