Woody Allen: staff walk-out at publisher leads to cancelled book deal

[Lamahaha]

www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/06/woody-allen-memoir-hachette-books?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR1a3DfLgDhcc4sRI2vpIcl2g8SP73_2gtqYAE2VCzwzFhQgy91eaTbqtTA

Woody Allen is a creep and he should not be given a platform.

But: if only there'd be staff walk-outs at companies which promote the transagenda!

Oh purlease! THIRTY highly SUBJECTIVE interviews with people claiming to be innocent.

Compared to the millions of victims around the world every day who's lives really are ruined (of which I am one) AND the evidence we see every day of accused people being supported by family, friends, employers, employees, the media, fans if they are in any way celebrities...

Yea as I said common sense and bleeding obvious say otherwise.

Let me get my tiny violin out for the silencing of utter creep WA.

I mean, I don't agree with censorship but I am pretty certain he could afford to self-publish if he wanted to.

Has he been deleted off Twitter, Facebook, been refused advertising space, been refused access to public spaces to hold meetings, threatened with violence?

Yeah, on the basis of censorship alone I would not think the book should be canceled.

As far as the sexual abuse allegations, I thing they are extremely problematic and I have pretty grave doubts.

You do not have to buy his book unless you were going to burn it.

Marrying your partner's step daughter was very wrong and should have been illegal. He was in a powerful parenting role and much older. He'd also had years of fecking private psychoanalysis! I lost all respect gor him and would not pay to watch his films after that. His therapist or a friend should have told some truths to the vain abusive man.

Partner's daughter

I loathe Woody Allen, I believe Dillon.

Therefore I chose not to watch his films or give my money to anything associated with him. However, he still has the right to make the film's, or in this case write the book and release it.

Free speech applies to everyone, no matter how abhorrent a human being.

As an aside, I thought the actions of the actresses in France was very powerful when they walked out of an awards ceremony when the rapist Polanski was honoured changing the narrative from his award to his crimes.

I reckon we haven't got the full story.

Hachette will take a big knock from this. Why were the staff so powerful? Was it ALL the staff? Had anyone had sight of what Allen had written?

Companies just don't show that much respect for employees' feelings ordinarily. It can't have been just strength of feeling that achieved this.

Also, I don't see this as censorship, it's a business decision which must have been based on risk. And I can't see how losing some staff would be a bigger risk than losing status as a publisher and sales from a controversial book, unless there is more information we don't have.

I mean, I don't agree with censorship but I am pretty certain he could afford to self-publish if he wanted to

That misses the point. Suzanne Moore is probably reasonably comfortably well off but nothing like WA. Unless you would be happy with the Guardian staff refusing to print her articles it is hypocrisy to support this.

Mud sticks

I think sunshine is still the best disinfectant.
Though I do think the publishers make a huge mistake when they publish fictional biographies as non fiction.