Neil Gaiman consequences

[RaspberryParade]

Neil Gaiman screen adaptations halted after allegations of sexual misconduct
Netflix’s Dead Boy Detectives has been cancelled and productions by Amazon and Disney have been put on hold amid reports about the Coraline author
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/sep/13/neil-gaiman-screen-adaptations-halted-after-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct

A court case would be good.

Yeah, I dislike cancel culture. As far as I'm concerned, the consequence for sexually assaulting women should be that you're tried and sentenced in court.

I'm not going to cry any tears over NG getting cancelled and losing money but I'd prefer actual justice to be done.

@wrongthinker Me neither but its ironic all the same. And there has been two threads complaining there were no consequences for him, so I'm posting them as they've happened.

Yes, it would, but the Tortoise podcast went through "Scarlett's" attempt to explore the possibility of a prosecution.

I think in a country with laws about coercive control (like the UK) and an understanding that consent must be clear and not coerced by economic or safety circumstances. Basically, according to the women interviewed by Tortoise, it is clear from their POV that their consent was coerced.

I'm afraid that he'd be acquitted, even in the UK.

Though ... if another ten women came forward to tell pretty much the same story, then there's a case for him being prosecuted for serial sexual assault.

The thread about NG isn't "complaining".

Is this the first time it's been reported in the Guardian?

Yay! Someone's been cancelled because of unsubstantiated claims.

Apart from the substantiation in his own words.

It says in the article that

Gaiman has strongly denied any unlawful conduct.

So that means he hasn't admitted to sexual assault.

No, 'just' pouncing on women without checking whether they wanted him to or not, and getting naked in a hot tub with a young woman several decades his junior, hours after meeting her as his employee dependent on him for housing. And then shoving his fingers into her anus.

Oh, and the tapes of him offering huge payouts to a sexual assault charity after another 'consensual' relationship.

What a prince.

The point I'm making is that he's denied the claims and they're unsubstantiated. I don't feel comfortable cancelling people who it hasn't been proved have done anything wrong. You obviously are.

poppyzbrite4, I think teawamutu's point, and I agree, is that many relevant "claims" are substantiated, by NG's having admitted to them in his own words - they are enough to show that it's not true that he hasn't "done anything wrong". If one thinks that the stuff he has admitted to is reprehensible enough that it makes sense not to support him financially by buying his work, then it's ok to be pleased that people are not buying his work. Whether or not he's done anything unlawful is a different matter which we need not go into.

Nope. He may not think he's committed assault, but on just what he has admitted to he's a nasty, creepy, misogynist cunt.

What he has admitted to is not a million miles from what MULTIPLE women are saying. I find it very credible.

But I wouldn't cancel him if I could see him properly investigated and potentially charged. Or even answering questions.

Since that will never happen, partly because he's rich and male and the world gives not one shit about women, am I going to give him one penny of my money ever again? No. Am I going to cry for him if lots of others do the same? No.

I haven't read any interviews where Gaiman admits to sexual assault. As far as I know he's denied the allegations.

Whether or not he's done anything unlawful is a different matter which we need not go into.

Well sexual assault, rape, coercive sex are all unlawful. I see it as the same matter.

If Gaiman admits to sexual assault then he's obviously a fucking prick.

We're not going to agree. I detest cancel culture and I am not comfortable with trial by social media. I've got no idea what happened, others are obviously certain enough to condemn him and obviously that's their prerogative.

I've got no idea what happened,

You could, if you wanted to. The podcasts by Tortoise and the Am I Broken podcast investigate the claims.

Fwiw I'm not a fan of cancel culture either and I think he has broken the law and should see court.

We're at cross purposes. Sexual misconduct is not just illegal activity: it includes behaviour like, say, engaging in sexual activity with your employee within hours of meeting her, behaviour to which NG has admitted.

I have no issues with Neil Gaiman facing consequences.
I do worry about all the individuals employed by the cancelled productions who are also suffering the consequences of NGs actions.
I'm not sure what can be done to square that circle.

Yes, that's something that concerns me, too. You'd hope the crews will be put on other shows but I don't know how it works.

I don't think just taking his name off is the answer either (in fact I would be delighted to see his name broadcast far and wide with the details of what he felt was reasonable conduct attached to it, never mind what the women are saying).

There are grossly immoral behaviours which are not illegal, and people who engage in such behaviours should not be making millions of pounds off TV shows.

Gaiman has presumably built up enough money over his long and successful career to have a comfortable retirement. We don't need to shed tears for the man.

No, I don't agree people should be punished for "legal but harmful" speech or behaviour. Who decides what this covers?

What "grossly immoral" behaviours are legal, anyway? When they are, like child gender experiments, we campaign for them to be made illegal, don't we?

Neil Gaiman should be prosecuted for the sexual assaults he's committed, which are against the law.

It's not really cancel culture so much as large businesses making a tactical decision not to be associated with someone potentially toxic. (Remember when Ridley Scott made a whole film starring Kevin Spacey, then reshot it with Christopher Plummer when Spacey was accused of molesting young men?) It might not be very nice, or very fair, but it's how capitalism works.

Cancel culture is much more to do with banning people for holding views you don't agree with: literary festivals disinviting them, bookshops refusing to stock their books, agents dropping their clients. It's what happened to people like Graham Linehan and Jenny Lindsey, with consequences that were devastating for both of them.

He’s admitted to something that is clearly sexual
assault - he just doesn’t think it is.

It's not really cancel culture so much as large businesses making a tactical decision not to be associated with someone potentially toxic.

Isn't that exactly the argument people use when JK's name is taken off Harry Potter stuff?

It's all cancel culture. I don't think that you can say it's only cancel culture when it's happening to one side.

I have to admit to finding it difficult to stick to principle here, because I don't give a shit if NG is cancelled. But I don't believe it's the right way to deal with illegal behaviour. It needs to be prosecuted. Obviously he may lose a job/jobs for the equivalent of gross misconduct. I think that's reasonable. But it should be clear that this is what's happening, rather than quietly swept under the carpet.

Hollywood used to have a pretty good way of dealing with scandal. It's often called the doghouse.

If an actor had a scandal, the way it worked was that they'd have a brief period of humiliation. They'd lose some work - maybe their next project would be cancelled or recast - they'd have some bad headlines, Jay Leno would crack jokes about them for a week or two.

And there was a way back. If your scandal was substance related you'd check into the Betty Ford clinic. If it was racism related you'd contact Jesse Jackson and he would give you something to do. And after about 12 to 18 months your career would get back on track.

Obviously some people would be impacted more than others, and some careers never really recovered. But it would take a huge scandal like OJ Simpson being accused of murder to make someone permanently unemployable. Short of that, there was a path to redemption.

The problem I have with recent year cancel culture is that it tries to make people permanently unemployable for having the wrong opinions. JKR is probably too big to fail, but you can see the way it's hit someone like Glinner.

One reason why I don't give a fuck about NG is that he loved cancel culture as long as he thought it would never come for him.

It's all cancel culture. I don't think that you can say it's only cancel culture when it's happening to one side.

But I'm not saying that. Suppose JKR had been accused of sexual impropriety, then you can understand that a business might want to disassociate itself from her, even if the claims hadn't been tested in court. But all JKR has done is express an opinion some people don't like. Same with Jenny Lindsey.

Just to spell it out:

Having an opinion some people don't like is not the same as having allegations of sexual misconduct made against you.