Kesha’s Rape and Abuse Claims Dismissed • Page 3

Hard to contest that, and I could definitely see flack existing if a male coach was body-shaming female players. Pop music is something I'm way less familiar with in terms of industry proceedings, I grew up idolizing producers like Jerry Finn who had many return artists over the years and helped guide and craft their careers and work, similar to what Will Yip is doing these days with the new crew of RFC bands. I've always known the pop world to be one where fame is very fleeting and diminishes just as quickly as it shows up, and I can't help but notice that since those departures it seems like these artists have been very quiet...I can't remember the last time I heard a song by Avril Lavigne that wasn't off "Let It Go" or a Kelly Clarkson or Katy Perry song on the radio that Dr. Luke didn't have a hand in. I could 100% be wrong about that though. I don't doubt that's he's a shady guy, I think anyone considering him a boy scout at this point is fairly delusional. There's no doubt these artists are talented, but the kind of immediate success they achieved seems to come almost exclusively from the hands of industry titans who are out for themselves and money, and not the music. But that's how the world of pop music has typically always felt to me, flash in the pan with hands in your pockets the whole way. What do you make of the (alleged) fact that by all intents and purposes she is free to record with other producers should she choose? I

 

Yeah i understand the confusion with the writing. Legal writing can be a pain in the ass to read because its often written using outdated terms and "proper" writing from way back in the day, it's honestly obnoxious at times. I could use some help from english majors or editors but i think what she wrote is technically correct. "Every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime" i think is the same as it would be when moving "not" to the beginning of the sentence which makes it way more clear, "Not every rape is a gender-motivated hate crime." When we say "everything is..." its clear and unambiguous. But when we say "everything is not" it's less clear. So like, "everything is ok" is clear when "everything is not ok" could lead to confusion with some thinking it means "nothing is ok" and others thinking "some things are ok but not every thing is ok." So i guess what im saying is "everything is not" simply means "not everything."

I get that it sucks to have to prove guilt but I don't see how there is any other way? Like the system would be even more fucked up than it is now. These are also civil claims, so Luke has to prove his claims and Kesha prove hers. If this was a criminal trial then neither Luke nor Kesha would have to prove anything, the state would have to prove guilt. I don't think people realize how often women seek help for domestic violence immediately after it happens but then go back to the guy before trial. So the state has to prove guilt of the guy using a hostile witness whom they are trying to protect. And when/if he is found not guilty you know when they are leaving the court house that he's gonna do it again and you just hope the woman will survive and be able to leave. There is special protocol in place to basically obtain as much admissible evidence as possible with the woman when she first comes in, essentially you're to assume she may go back to the guy in order to be as thorough as possible to lock the scum up. Proving something criminally beyond a reasonable doubt is not an east task.

The rules of evidence are complex and im not familiar enough with this case to make any judgements. But a very broad legal concept is you can't use evidence to prove the defendant acted in conformity with those prior events (subject to balancing tests). So basically, just because a person robbed a store on prior occasions doesn't mean he robbed the store on this occasion. The reason for this is because every person gets a fair trial, and if jurors heard of those past events they would judge his guilt based on those past discretion's which have no bearing on the current trial which the state must prove. Also, we want to rehabilitate people so after they pay for their wrongs we want them to have a relative clean slate. There are numerous exceptions though.

But yeah I also don't think the general public realize how many defendants who are guilty walk free in ALL sorts of crimes. Every day there are suppression cases where a guy has coke, heroin, guns, etc. on him. The arguments aren't that the gun isn't his or what he was doing was legal, but that his constitutional rights were violated to get that gun or illegal thing. So that evidence is thrown out, the case is dropped, and that guy walks free even though he was guilty. Im not saying this is the right way to do things but i think people watch tv and see the big controversial cases and thinks that's the norm and it's really not. I think as a concept the legal system is decent, but in execution it is often really fucked up. Prisons are already packed, if everyone who was actually guilty was put away we'd be fucked. I really don't agree with how the legal system deals with convicted criminals, it's just not working and needs reform but that is a whole other mess of an issue.

 

Well Avril only worked with Luke on that one song, I think. He wasn't the producer who made her famous and he pretty much killed her relationship with Butch Walker, so there was no way she was bringing him back. I don't know if she's had any hits since. Probably not. Kelly Clarkson is actually doing fine with her latest record, and Katy Perry was everywhere with her last record, though Dr. Luke still had a lot of fingerprints on that. I wonder if she'll work with him again on her next one. I hope not. But I think you can attribute their waxing and waning mainstream successes as much to the whims of a fickle listening public as you can to their producer/songwriter choices. None of those artists are struggling on any level.

As for Kesha being allowed to record with other producers, I don't think I should be the one to comment on that. If it's true, that would obviously be preferable to her having to finish out her contract with Dr. Luke. But she's said Sony knew about the abuse and did nothing, so...I mean, I can't imagine going to work for a company that betrayed me like that, can you? I think it's tough for me as a white male to understand the gravity of that situation. If she doesn't feel safe working with Sony in any capacity, I personally think her contract should be voided.

 

I don't know much about the US justice system but using past issues as "evidence" could easily be abused, yeah? IE. Robbery at a gas station occurs. Black man is arrested for the robbery because 10 years ago, he robbed a gas station.

 

That makes a lot of sense, and that's a great point as well. We live in a society where being a white male is pretty much the best possible thing you can be, and I think it makes it a lot harder to put myself in other people's shoes in that regard, though in all honesty that's pretty much what I'm after. I just want to understand and I guess I'm torn between being a cynic and having hope that things can't possibly really be that fucked up for other people, can they? Also I'm learning there's a very strict difference between viewing things from a legal standpoint and viewing things as a fellow human being. It's sad that it's so hard for the two to co-exist.

Thanks for engaging me on this as well, I've enjoyed the conversation immensely and learned quite a bit from it.

 

Sorry I'm late responding to you, Anna. And I absolutely agree. There was a rape case that we looked over once, and the guilty ruling the at-the-time-boyfriend got was overturned by the judge because the girl had "a history of aggressive sexual desires" (as the defendant's lawyer put it) and the judge felt she "needed to learn how to treat her body better if she wanted the respect she felt she deserved."

It was one of the most disgusting things I'd ever heard in my life... There is one thing that is possible however. If Kesha's lawyers felt the judge was possibly overlooking this judge as bias, they could request to go before another judge. Of course, I really don't know how much longer Kesha and her team want to go through this ordeal, but it IS an option they could take. But that again goes with her legal team taking/encouraging to take the next steps to do so. Just like I'm sure Dr. Luke's team knows the wormholes in our justice system, Kesha's team needs to utilize them as well.\

 

Apologies for not responding sooner to you as well, Craig.

I really don't think it's so much the judge "not understanding" what rape is. A jury cannot go based on he-said-she-said with neither having evidence that either may or may not be lying and it be considered a fair trial for either party. Like I said, Kesha could counter-sue for the EXACT same thing if her legal team encouraged it. But it's like they just want Dr. Luke to step forward and upright say "Yep, I definitely did it" without putting up a fight of some sort. We cannot him for that honestly, no matter how slimy it may be to many. Until they present some kind of evidence though, ANYTHING Kesha can bring forward that (it seriously doesn't take much), the judge (on the payroll, or simply remaining unbias) cannot let it continue. :(