Chris Hardwick Reinstated by AMC After Investigation Into Cheating Ex's Unsubstanciated Allegations

[cincymma79]

Although Dykstra is a fucked up person - the thing is, she didn't actually name him. So she can't be held liable.

We can all hope she falls in a vat of hot grease

 

[USA!USA!]

I think this is the right decision and I'm happy for Chris. Hopefully he gets everything back and then some. As far as criminal penalties against Chloe, I understand the sentiment, but it would still be inappropriate in this case. Even a civil suit could be complicated since she never named him, just heavily implied that it was him. A bitch move, but it's probably best for all involved to just move on from this...

I am no lawyer but does the heavy implication mean nothing when it is public knowledge that is who she was with for the period of time she was discussing? Especially when it was him who received damages as a result of the accusations.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

We can all hope she falls in a vat of hot grease

We can all take comfort in the fact that, while she didn’t exactly have a career in Hollywood to begin with, anything she had that resembled a career will now be over. She will be waiting tables in Wyoming in a few months.

 

[sub_thug]

I said it before and i’ll say it again. After so many years of men preying on women in the workplace, we shouldn’t be surprised when the pendulum swings too far the other way, as it has - men being assumed predators after one accusation. But this is going to be the moment where things start to calm down, people start to come to their senses, and we reach a new equilibrium; hopefully one at which men are not able to freely harass women in the workplace.

Where do you work where men have been free to prey on women in the workplace? For my entire adult life (mid 30's), I haven't seen anything resembling that. I hear bad things about the journalism industry, Hollywood, and the music business, but those aren't problems that I have been exposed to. If you're alluding to the 1950s or 60s, then that's really a different era that doesn't have much bearing on today.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

False rape/sexual assault accusations should be punishable by electric chair

no, they should be punishable by rape {olde English executioner style {some fat dude wearin' a hood}}

 

[HereticBD]

Is the worm starting to turn a bit? Are we getting a little less hysterical over these accusations, and holding accusers accountable to prove their accusations before tossing the accused to the pits of hell?

I fucking hope so. Bravo to AMC for giving their head a shake, and righting a wrong after a proper investigation into the matter.

I still hate "The Talking Dead", and shows like it, but good on them anyways.

 

[Te Huna Matata]

Where do you work where men have been free to prey on women in the workplace? For my entire adult life (mid 30's), I haven't seen anything resembling that. I hear bad things about the journalism industry, Hollywood, and the music business, but those aren't problems that I have been exposed to. If you're alluding to the 1950s or 60s, then that's really a different era that doesn't have much bearing on today.

What I find most interesting about that is they are all very left-leaning industries and they are the same industries (not necessarily music but the other 2) who beat their chests about social justice.

 

[sub_thug]

What I find most interesting about that is they are all very left-leaning industries and they are the same industries (not necessarily music but the other 2) who beat their chests about social justice.

Meh, I'm not terribly surprised by the blatant hypocrisy on display here. Churches have been preaching temperance for many, many years, but they've certainly had public wide-spread scandals of sexual misconduct. Hypocrisy is going to infect most elements of our society to varying degrees. These industries that I mentioned, which are mostly based out of New York and LA, just happen to be some of the best examples of hypocrisy by liberal groups who happen to think that they are somehow qualified to tell Americans what's best for them.

 

[Ranzou**]

If this hasn't been said already it needs to be said. Women the world over should hate this chick for what she has done. She has single handedly now made it harder for women who have legitimate complaints to come forward. I mean a helluva lot of dudes were already jaded about this movement in the first place. Now who is going to believe it when it's true?

 

[Scerpi]

The New Headline should read

"Chloe Dykstra gets Nicole Brown Fired from her new job with The Talking Dead after making false allegations of Sexual Harassment."

 

[Hitmanx2]

good for him

 

[Hogey]

Someone needs to go all negan on the bitch

 

[HomerThompson]

Can't keep a hard wick down.

John Wick 3: Hard Wick

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Where do you work where men have been free to prey on women in the workplace? For my entire adult life (mid 30's), I haven't seen anything resembling that. I hear bad things about the journalism industry, Hollywood, and the music business, but those aren't problems that I have been exposed to. If you're alluding to the 1950s or 60s, then that's really a different era that doesn't have much bearing on today.

I don’t work anywhere where they are allowed to do that. I was making a general statement. Yes, some industries are obviously worse than others. I’m not saying it has been rampant everywhere, in every office, in every cubicle.

 

[sub_thug]

I don’t work anywhere where they are allowed to do that. I was making a general statement. Yes, some industries are obviously worse than others. I’m not saying it has been rampant everywhere, in every office, in every cubicle.

It just seems odd that you’d say that the pendulum is swinging too far back the other way if this “overcorrection” wasn’t actually in retaliation to a real problem to begin with. Isn’t that the very definition of a witch hunt? This whole #metoo thing just seems to me as though it’s just a reactionary movement that happens to be seated at the nexus of some angry feminism that’s been there for a long time on the back burner, the political polarization of the US in the sense that the people driving this movement are liberals who are getting more liberal, anger directed specifically at President Trump (boorish comments like “grab me by the pussy” being the rallying cry and key to the movement’s timing), and a few powderkeg events, starting with Harvey Weinstein’s disgusting behavior. It seems less like a pendulum swinging back and more like a bubble that has formed in a society that’s increasingly angry.

 

[Judge]

Is the worm starting to turn a bit? Are we getting a little less hysterical over these accusations, and holding accusers accountable to prove their accusations before tossing the accused to the pits of hell?

I fucking hope so. Bravo to AMC for giving their head a shake, and righting a wrong after a proper investigation into the matter.

I still hate "The Talking Dead", and shows like it, but good on them anyways.

Well, he was fired from a show after not being directly accused. But he is pretty much a leftist so he gets forgiven.

 

[HereticBD]

Well, he was fired from a show after not being directly accused. But he is pretty much a leftist so he gets forgiven.

They came to their senses, which is the important thing.

This ain't really a left/right issue. Lefties are getting nailed with this bullshit all the same. It's a crazy/sane issue.

 

[marioh]

Well, he was fired from a show after not being directly accused. But he is pretty much a leftist so he gets forgiven.

He was never fired from either show. He was essentially suspended pending the investigation.
Unless you're talking about his comic con appearances and hosting duties, which, yes, he got screwed with those. But I'm sure he'll be back at that event next year and probably the one in the NY in the fall.

 

[MikeMcMann]

If this hasn't been said already it needs to be said. Women the world over should hate this chick for what she has done. She has single handedly now made it harder for women who have legitimate complaints to come forward. I mean a helluva lot of dudes were already jaded about this movement in the first place. Now who is going to believe it when it's true?

We've seen much worse examples than this one of scorned females making spurious and false accusations some of which were leading to jail time before the women got exposed for making everything up and nothing has really changed. Guys are still summarily guilty and unless they have irrefutable evidence to clear themselves they will go down.

The women who are inclined to make these false allegations in the future may become smarter and ensure they do not leave any such written trails (emails, texts, etc) or as the Canadian Liberal gov't is trying to do after the Ghomeshi case got thrown out, such evidence exonerating the accused may be restricted from being used in court or the defense will be forced to give it to accuser first so they can tailor their testimony around it and not fall into the credibility traps.

 

[MikeMcMann]

To add to what I say above cases like Hardwicks ex girlfriend and the much worse Ghomeshi Case where he was wrongly accused by 3 women are only proving to harden the resolve of the #MeToo movement and the people pushing that agenda. The movement is pushing a '#justbelieve' part of the movement whose purpose is to push a narrative that these women should not be forced to defend the accusations or asked to provide evidence as that is just a secondary abuse and instead we should just #believethem or #justbelieve.

this is not a harmless push as we have seen the Canadian Liberal gov't immediately try to satisfy these groups by looking to create new law making it much harder for an accused to put up defense using things like Texts or emails which can directly counter testimony the accusing woman may put out in open court which may affect her credibility when contrasted with what she may have wrote in the hours, days, weeks and months following the alleged assaults.

Often times credibility is the only defining factor in a he said/she said case where little physical evidence exists and the gov't is trying to ensure accusing women are not caught up in credibility traps by their own lies to ensure more convictions. It is scary.

Canada's new sexual assault law is a 'catastrophic attack' on the rights of the accused
...

...The government apparently feels these ideologues’ pain. They have channeled the mistaken but widespread belief that the justice system is skewed against women into Bill C-51, ... C-51 proposes changes that will satisfy many radical feminists, but may ruin the lives of many innocent men accused of sexual assault.

...C-51 expands the “rape shield” protections for sexual assault complainants, by restricting the ability of the accused to use communications by a complainant or witness that are “of a sexual nature” or “for a sexual purpose” as part of his defence, particularly to establish the defence of “mistaken belief in consent” (remember Lucy DeCoutere’s email to Ghomeishi following an allegedly harrowing assault, “I love your hands!”?). An accused will be prohibited from introducing these kinds of sexually explicit texts or emails as evidence in court unless a judge first rules them to be admissible, after conducting a closed hearing with the Crown prosecutor, which the complainant may attend, accompanied by her own lawyer if she chooses ...
This is a scandalous reversal of the traditional understanding that the burden of proof of guilt lies upon the Crown. Toronto defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger told columnist Christie Blatchford that the bill’s effect will be a “catastrophic attack on our ability to make full answer and defence. It’s unprecedented.”

If this bill passes, defence lawyers will be more restricted in the evidence they can lead or the case theory they can propose (defence often taking its cue from Crown strategy). The defence’s prior disclosure may also identify complainant landmines, permitting the Crown to plot a course around them. There’s also a risk that a complainant who participates in the closed hearing (to rule on an email or text’s admissibility) will be tipped off on what to say or not say in court. Those complainants who have no problem lying anyway may simply tailor their in-court testimonies, once they’ve been made aware of the evidence that the defence plans to lead.

...
Moreover, under C-51, if the defence doesn’t seek to introduce such sexual-nature communications as evidence, it’s a likely signal that it has none, and the Crown can be fairly confident that the case will be little more than “he said-she said.” This forced revelation of the defence’s cards essentially makes the defence an unwilling player for the Crown team.

Retired family-law lawyer Grant Brown believes C-51 is so misguided that it is tantamount to a repeal of the presumption of innocence, because it so weakens the defence’s ability to defend himself. He wrote to me: “Canadians have a charter right against self-incrimination, which entails that an accused is not required to speak to the police or to testify at a trial. Requiring defence disclosure comes perilously close to revoking that Charter right.”

This is an appalling bill that will make it even more difficult for accused individuals to provide a full and robust defence. If defence disclosure is such a great idea for the administration of justice, why should it only apply in cases of sexual assault? That was a rhetorical question. Only in sexual assault cases can one be nearly certain that the law will be tilted heavily in favour of finding men guilty of the offences of which they’ve been accused.