So the italian #metoo campaign leader Asia Argento just settled out of court for the accusation of having had sex with a minor actor (they say he took a selfie so he had proof, and he was 17).

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/u...y-bennett.html

So now italians that doubted her moral stance, the way she communicated in these matters and so on are vindicated as reasonable skeptics who know you can't take a public figure words at the letter and the right way to treat unproven allegations is usually both to disregard them and to lose trust in people who spread them ruining other people lives.

Oh and the prosecution in the case of film director fausto brizzi saw no elements to go on after 3 women sued him for sexual harrasment (sorry i found no links in english about him being cleared, but plenty in english about the accusations, "go figure why"), because the "facts didn't happen" (il fatto non sussiste, legal expression to me nothing of the sort being investigated for took place in italy so the investigation and formal accusation gets dropped by the prosecutor, which in italy has the legal duty to search for truth not to jail as many people as possible).

Asia argento ran the accusations to brizzi hard from her twitter account and he stopped working on a movie he was making and so on.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Certainly the message to be taken away from this is that if there was 1 false accusation then the entire #metoo movement is **** and I don't actually have to stop treating random women like sex dolls who exist for my pleasure.

If the highest profile italian metoo accusation is a complete scam, and it was being accused by 3 different women in court (and 10 in the "court of popular opinion"), the message to take away is that these campaigns and people who push them are evil, bad for society, and in contrast with everything that is worth fighting for (including women safety which is lower after these campaigns for obvious reasons).

If the public face of the metoo campaign in italy had sex with a 17y old, is that good for women?

Now women in italy will have to face a high burden to accuse even when it really happened and this is a problem entirely fabricated by social justice campaigners who jumped on mere unproven accusations because of the high profile of the target to "score a point". Point scored, now women have one more problem. Well done justice warriors, well done.

Metoo works against women, against men, agaisnt the rule of law, against justice and against everything that it is worth to fight for. At least in italy.

The "highest profile Italian #metoo accusation" is Argento's against Weinstein, right? Do I have that wrong?

If so, it's hard to see exactly how this news leads to the conclusion that it's a scam. There are like 80 accusations against him from different people. The accusations are credible despite Argento's crime against Bennett.

I'm sure it's fair to say that Argento's crime will create opportunities for those who want to push back against #metoo, but it seems that people like you would accept any opportunity to do so, no matter how nonsensical. She ought to be held responsible for her own actions, of course, but it doesn't follow that #metoo is somehow invalidated by them. You're very clearly not arguing in good faith.

Sexual abusers have often been victims. It doesn’t do a damn thing to reduce the damage to their own victims, and it doesn’t absolve their abusers.

no i was talking about the Brizzi case. Weinstein was completly unknown to the general public in Italy.

OK. Looks like he has also been accused by multiple women.

Also, it's not clear to me from this article, but it appears that Argento is not even one of them. Rather than making any more assumptions about what you are trying to argue, maybe you could just explain how the news about Argento leads you to the conclusion that the case against Brizzi is a scam.

(edit: I can see that they are just separate issues, and some of this confusion is on my part. So probably nevermind this. Seems to me though that you are still too quick to try to invalidate the larger movement on the basis of Argento's character, but I think I understand what you were trying to say better now)

You wrote this:

...in a post that made no mention of Brizzi. This take is really ****ing dumb.

we shouldn't even been talking about cases because that is what tribunals are for. Being forced, violently, to talk about it by the metoo campaign, we have to rely on how credible accusers are given their accusations are unsubstantiated. And argento credibility just went down the drain. And the was (is?) the leader of the metoo campaign in italy.

This doesn't "excuse" weinstein. Tribunals should decide on the matter, not public opinion.

But this should stop people pushing defamatory accusations. Because we have proof both of false accusations, and of the very low moral character of the chief accuser (in Italy).

Let professional investigate, let professional decide what really happened, and only if and when we have proof to say that something happened, let's punish those who did it

sorry, I posted about Brizzi right afterwards. But you are right i should have made only 1 post. I am sorry

as I wrote he was accused by 3 women in court, 10 in total including those that didn't press charges. The 3 women suing were dismissed by prosecutors who investigated and found no proof at all that the accusations were close to the truth. They decided "il fatto non sussiste", those accusations were baseless.

Argento used her newfound public place as leader of the Italian metoo movement to sell these accusations as credible to the general public. She worked hard to destroy Brizzi career just based on what these women were saying.

If it had happened now Brizzi wouldn't have suffered public humiliation and disgrace, because now we know argento is deeply hypocritical and by no mean motivated by real moral reasons in her campaign

fwiw I edited that post after you quoted it. Sorry about my confusion.

Are statutes of limitations not a thing in Italy?

In the U.S., if enough time has passed, you may not have access to a tribunal.

Another dumb take that MRAs exclusively apply to the crime of sexual assault. If a person was accused of murder and witnesses publicly said "I saw him do it", nobody would be trotting out this "we shouldn't even talk about this in public, this is what courts are for" bull****.

actually we should. We should never trust some1 who says something publiclly that has a meaningful effect on some person life. Innocent until proven guilty is a core pillar of western civilization, one of the very few things that brought us the immense and unprecedented prosperity and life quality that we enjoy now. It is a sacred element of what constitute the best of our ideology, and we should work hard to protect it.

He also wrote this:
... back in November, so like, there is no need to concern ourselves. He's 100% just nursing a grievance because I successfully predicted he'd turn out to be Italian. That stung.

afaik we have a longer than usual statute of limitations, but it doesn't stop with an investigation (or a judicial process). I don't think it applies to this case though, as if that was the case, they would have said "fuori dai termini di prescrizione". When a prosecutor decides not to press charges, given we have mandatory crime prosecution in Italy, they have to formally justify why they didn't prosecute. In this case they used the "fatto non sussiste" formula, which means that all the elements the prosecutor had in hand didn't justify prosecution (similar to a gran jury not indicting in your country I think)

I stood corrected by the zealous work of your fellow posters afterwards and admitted not knowing enough in the Weinstein case to express an opinion etc etc. Anyway I am talking about Italian metoo now.

hahahahahaha omg

okay then

Yes, you claimed familiarity, then ignorance, then familiarity, then ignorance, just whichever you'd determined would best enable you to generally dismiss such claims. I remember, dude. Like I said, no need to concern ourselves, we can just have a chuckle.

it's nice to see you are always after justice, and you think naming and shaming sexual criminals is a moral duty. Interestingly, you said nothing about Argento having sex with a 17y old. You didn't feel the need to say anything at all on it.

While I perfectly remember how you were talking about white males sexually harassing or God forbid having relationships with minors. From a position of asymetrical power nonetheless.

Now, any however slight shred of goodwill you could have faked has gone away. You care 0, nada, about sexual improprieties. You have no moral qualms about powerful people having sex with minors.

You have a big problem with powerful white males though and the metoo campaign satisfies that bloodthirst adequately.

Because if you even felt for real what you faked about sexual harassment in this thread, the first and only legitimate reaction to argento paying 380k to avoid prison time after raping (that's the word you use when a 35y olds has sex with a 17y old from a position of power, am I right?) a child (that's the word you use when the 17y is female right?) Would be disgust. You would have wrote some lines if argento was male and the victim female. Some line deep of hatred for argento and what it means for society and what we need to do to stop this utmost evil and so on.

But no, nada. Not a word. And this is the definite proof that you are in bad faith when you argue about this topic.

No one needs to say anything about Argento because there's not two sides to that argument. She's a scummy POS who should go to jail if that's still possible. And you weren't even the first person to post about her in this forum (it was brought up in another thread), so you're wrong if you think you're the only person who cares.

It's only when powerful men are threatened that people like you come around demanding the lynch mobs stand down and we wait for the accused to have their day in court. You are the problem.