Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Judge refuses to cancel contract with producer Dr. Luke who allegedly raped Kesha Watch

    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilylf)
    she didn't want to put him in jail, she simply doesn't want to work with him, it's unfair. zayn quite because he literally was 'unhappy', why can't she? its bulls***t
    It will be down to the clauses in the contract
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Regardless of what terrible crimes were (or were not) committed against her by this man, she signed a contract and should be made to uphold that. They aren't forcing her to work with her abuser, so what's the problem? I feel bad for her if it did happen, but this is a legally binding contract. End of.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So we shouldn't ask for evidence, we should just believe everything we hear?
    Actually I didn't notice anyone asking for evidence before saying things like "One begins to suspect she may just want to find a way out of her contract with Sony"
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    Actually I didn't notice anyone asking for evidence before saying things like "One begins to suspect she may just want to find a way out of her contract with Sony"
    Think about it just a little bit. She has a contract with Sony, not the producer. Sony has said it is willing to change the producer. She therefore does not need to come into contact with the producer while working with Sony.

    Couple that with the judge's negative comments about the evidence of abuse and rape, and the fact that she worked with the producer (post-supposed abuse/rape) for many years without going to law, and very successfully, we are left to ask does she seek to void the contract, and why now?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Think about it just a little bit. She has a contract with Sony, not the producer. Sony has said it is willing to change the producer. She therefore does not need to come into contact with the producer while working with Sony.

    Couple that with the judge's negative comments about the evidence of abuse and rape, and the fact that she worked with the producer (post-supposed abuse/rape) for many years without going to law, and very successfully, we are left to ask does she seek to void the contract, and why now?
    I can't speak for Kesha, but if I worked at a company that employed someone who raped me I would not be satisfied with moving departments. I would want to work at another company. I'm not sure what evidence you were expecting her to produce for a rape she claims happened ten years ago, unless she was supposed to waterboard a confession out of the guy on the witness stand.

    I really don't know what happened, or what was presented in court, or the wording of the contract, or the law governing what the ruling should have been. But neither do you, and I think it's very telling in such circumstances that you are celebrating the fact that Sony has won the case and claiming that you somehow know the other party is a liar. I don't believe it's because you have a personal attachment to Sony, or because this case has affected your life in any way. It seems that the only reason you have to take sides so strongly here is that something unfavourable happened to a woman, and this pleases you somehow.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    It seems that the only reason you have to take sides so strongly here is that something unfavourable happened to a woman, and this pleases you somehow.
    What a strong argument you have there, would you like some more ad hom?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    What a strong argument you have there, would you like some more ad hom?
    I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is. It's when I say something negative about someone, and use that as evidence against their argument. So for example, this would be ad hominem:

    1. I think you're sexist
    2. Therefore your argument is not sound.

    However this is not ad hominem:

    1. You are instinctively and emphatically taking sides against a woman with very limited information or rational reasons to do so
    2. Therefore I think you are sexist.




    But you seem to have another opinion on why Good Bloke has chosen to assume that Sony is definitely in the right and would never engage in shady business practices because multinational corporations literally never do that. Would you like to share it?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    i have heard of Sony, but not of Doctor Luke or Kesha ?
    Never?

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    But you seem to have another opinion on why Good Bloke has chosen to assume that Sony is definitely in the right and would never engage in shady business practices because multinational corporations literally never do that. Would you like to share it?
    It is a simple case of contract law. She signed it and she agreed to the terms. Now she is trying to get out of it in the only way she thinks will work.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    It is a simple case of contract law. She signed it and she agreed to the terms.
    Yes, because that's exactly how contract law, arbitration and civil suits work. Real life is exactly like that Wyclef Jean commercial.

    Now she is trying to get out of it in the only way she thinks will work.
    I don't know why you can't even acknowledge the possibility that she's telling the truth and she genuinely doesn't want to choose between suffering financial harm and spending time with her rapist. I'm not asking you to stand on a rooftop, banging a drum and advocating for Kesha. All I'm saying is that your instinct to claim she must be lying because (???) does not paint you in a very good light.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is. It's when I say something negative about someone, and use that as evidence against their argument. So for example, this would be ad hominem:

    1. I think you're sexist
    2. Therefore your argument is not sound.

    However this is not ad hominem:

    1. You are instinctively and emphatically taking sides against a woman with very limited information or rational reasons to do so
    2. Therefore I think you are sexist.




    But you seem to have another opinion on why Good Bloke has chosen to assume that Sony is definitely in the right and would never engage in shady business practices because multinational corporations literally never do that. Would you like to share it?
    You have taken the side against the law assuming that because she has said it has happened it has happened so you are sexist.

    A reason to take the side he has isn't that something has happened against a woman it is that the law has stood up for the rights of someone accused with no evidence despite the fact that people are against this.

    There is a possibility it has happened however there is no evidence to suggest this so should the courts follow the evidence or just forget about the law?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    I can't speak for Kesha, but if I worked at a company that employed someone who raped me I would not be satisfied with moving departments. I would want to work at another company. I'm not sure what evidence you were expecting her to produce for a rape she claims happened ten years ago, unless she was supposed to waterboard a confession out of the guy on the witness stand.

    I really don't know what happened, or what was presented in court, or the wording of the contract, or the law governing what the ruling should have been. But neither do you, and I think it's very telling in such circumstances that you are celebrating the fact that Sony has won the case and claiming that you somehow know the other party is a liar. I don't believe it's because you have a personal attachment to Sony, or because this case has affected your life in any way. It seems that the only reason you have to take sides so strongly here is that something unfavourable happened to a woman, and this pleases you somehow.
    You seem to be implying that I have misogynistic tendencies. Either that or it was your baby I ate for breakfast this morning.

    I think I made it clear in my first post that I do not necessarily believe that the producer is innocent. If you read my posts again you'll find that I have asked questions, not made any dogmatic statements about which side of the fence the truth lies, and one of those questions was why the producer did not sue.

    Kesha is not a Sony employee; she has a non-employment contractual relationship with the company and, probably, so does the producer. Because of this, I find it difficult to believe that a situation that could reasonably be resolved as Sony has suggested and that was not apparently a problem for many years after the alleged rape is unconnected with a falling-out between Kesha and Sony that has nothing to do with the producer.

    Where the truth lies, frankly, I neither know nor care.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    Yes, because that's exactly how contract law, arbitration and civil suits work. Real life is exactly like that Wyclef Jean commercial.


    I don't know why you can't even acknowledge the possibility that she's telling the truth and she genuinely doesn't want to choose between suffering financial harm and spending time with her rapist. I'm not asking you to stand on a rooftop, banging a drum and advocating for Kesha. All I'm saying is that your instinct to claim she must be lying because (???) does not paint you in a very good light.
    The judge clearly agrees with me.

    She has been given the option not to spend any time with her alleged rapist. To which she refused.
    Furthermore her lawyer Mark Geragos has already tried it on with Dr Luke in a previous rape allegation which was proven false.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Furthermore her lawyer Mark Geragos has already tried it on with Dr Luke in a previous rape allegation which was proven false.
    Thank you. That answers one of my questions. The producer has sued for libel.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Thank you. That answers one of my questions. The producer has sued for libel.
    Not on this case though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Not on this case though.
    It says:

    Meanwhile, Kesha’s case against Dr Luke continues to inch forward. In October, the Nashville-raised pop singer wrote that the producer had “sexually, physically, verbally and emotionally abused her” since they began collaborating, in 2005. Dr Luke called the allegations an “outrageous fiction”, countersuing Kesha and her mother, Pebe Sebert

    Have I interpreted that wrongly?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like a tricky issue since the rape allegation is just that, an allegation. Unless it goes to trial and is proven I'm not sure what else can be done.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You seem to be implying that I have misogynistic tendencies. Either that or it was your baby I ate for breakfast this morning.

    I think I made it clear in my first post that I do not necessarily believe that the producer is innocent. If you read my posts again you'll find that I have asked questions, not made any dogmatic statements about which side of the fence the truth lies, and one of those questions was why the producer did not sue.
    I am implying that, although to your credit, this post seems a lot more measured. However:

    You claimed to be shocked by the lengths that someone would go to to get out of a perfectly legal contract. You might not think that's dogmatic. Whatever. It's a lot more dogmatic than I would be. The producer has sued a number of people, actually. If he doesn't win those suits (one of which he has already lost) then presumably everyone will jump on the bandwagon calling him a liar too.. But I think we both know that's unlikely.

    Kesha is not a Sony employee; she has a non-employment contractual relationship with the company and, probably, so does the producer. Because of this, I find it difficult to believe that a situation that could reasonably be resolved as Sony has suggested and that was not apparently a problem for many years after the alleged rape is unconnected with a falling-out between Kesha and Sony that has nothing to do with the producer.

    Where the truth lies, frankly, I neither know nor care.
    The producer appears to be an employee by any definition. Judging by his career he would almost certainly be considered one if a dispute arose between him and Sony.


    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    The judge clearly agrees with me.

    She has been given the option not to spend any time with her alleged rapist. To which she refused.
    Furthermore her lawyer Mark Geragos has already tried it on with Dr Luke in a previous rape allegation which was proven false.
    Can you quote where the judge said that Kesha is just trying to get out of a contract by the only way she thinks will work? As far as I'm aware, he used much more measured language than that, and also had to take into account financial harm Sony might suffer. In any case, a different judge has ruled against Dr Luke, in a different case. I'll give you the opportunity to respond to that in the same way you have responded to Kesha losing a lawsuit.

    Her lawyer seems very unprofessional, possibly to the extent that he will be held liable. Incidentally, calling the lawyer's professionalism into question is a lot closer to ad hominem than anything I've said here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    Her lawyer seems very unprofessional, possibly to the extent that he will be held liable. Incidentally, calling the lawyer's professionalism into question is a lot closer to ad hominem than anything I've said here.
    I never questioned his professionalism, I questioned his intent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It says:

    Meanwhile, Kesha’s case against Dr Luke continues to inch forward. In October, the Nashville-raised pop singer wrote that the producer had “sexually, physically, verbally and emotionally abused her” since they began collaborating, in 2005. Dr Luke called the allegations an “outrageous fiction”, countersuing Kesha and her mother, Pebe Sebert

    Have I interpreted that wrongly?
    I just didn't read that far down, my bad.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 22, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.