Stan Lee accused of sexual harassment

[Trey Strain]

So it’s either true, and Lee is a perverted old man, OR what Lee’s lawyer is saying is true and these folks are trying to extort him for cash.

I don’t know what to believe, honestly. If more people come out and say Lee harassed them over the years I’d be more inclined to believe it.

I think it’s possible this could be the end of his cameos in future films.

No, there's another possibility -- that he's disabled by dementia.

Why do you not acknowledge this?

[gurkle]

So basically it is true former nurse(s) are claiming Stan Lee did expose him self and requested sex. There has according to Stan Lee's lawyer not been a police reporting nor made any legal claims form the nurse(s). The current nursing company has no problem with Lee and is according to them behaving "Polite, kind and respectful".

But that story's only source is the same Daily Mail story. There are a lot of articles out there that are basically just rewrites of that one story.

So we're left in the same place as before: Daily Mail stories are just as likely to be false as true, so we're waiting to see if there is more legitimate reporting on the story before deciding whether to believe it or not.

It is kind of funny to see people online jumping to his defense when they don't even have to yet, since there's really no legit story out there yet. People will get so involved with attacking or defending people we don't even know.

(To be fair, it's possible to imagine that if the story turned out to be legit, Disney would go and cut his cameos from all the previous movies or something stupid like that. This is a weird time.)

[Beaubier]

No, there's another possibility -- that he's disabled by dementia.

Why do you not acknowledge this?

While that’s possible, unless Lee or his representatives come out and say he has dementia, I’m not going to assume he does.

[Soubhagya]

Stan Lee could have done it. Its not that sexual desires go away in old age. But right now i would say it just as i would say to all such cases. He is not guilty unless its proven.

A lot of cases are coming up everyday. Kudos to those brave women who come out and speak the truth. Its not easy. But quite a number of accusations could turn out to be false. Its possible.

Some like Weinstein are surely true. The sheer number of accusations shows that there is truth within it. How many false accusations can come against just one person? To call anyone guilty just because someone accuses that person is not right in my opinion.

[Tupiaz]

But that story's only source is the same Daily Mail story. There are a lot of articles out there that are basically just rewrites of that one story.

So we're left in the same place as before: Daily Mail stories are just as likely to be false as true, so we're waiting to see if there is more legitimate reporting on the story before deciding whether to believe it or not.

It is kind of funny to see people online jumping to his defense when they don't even have to yet, since there's really no legit story out there yet. People will get so involved with attacking or defending people we don't even know.

(To be fair, it's possible to imagine that if the story turned out to be legit, Disney would go and cut his cameos from all the previous movies or something stupid like that. This is a weird time.)

IIRC The daily mail didn't have quotes from the lawyer nor the new company.

[gurkle]

IIRC The daily mail didn't have quotes from the lawyer nor the new company.

It did; the Fortune article says that those are all statements made "to the Daily Mail" and if you click through to the original article all those quotes are from there.

Sort of like how every time there's a new "exclusive" story (false or true) every single website writes their own version of it but they're all just quoting the original source. I guess this has been going on forever but in the internet era it's more annoying. Instead of finding one article and then another one to back it up, we find dozens of articles all based on the same article.

[Curlytop]

Sadly, I agree with you.

Some people on the right will take the attitude of, "I'm so hard azzed that I won't even accept dementia as a reason for this behavior."

And some people on the left will think, "I can collect another scalp for the cause of women here, and I don't care if if he has dementia."

That thinking isn't improving the world.

Not to mention that sanctimony on that scale probably overlies at least a bit of hypocrisy in the person's own behavior. Who is really sacred enough to take attitudes that are THAT extreme?

It's a rare person who hasn't gotten drunk enough to do some things he's embarrassed about.

I can see waiting to see if other reports come out about Stan, but I can't see finding ways that sexual harassment is ok. Not being inebriated or anything like that. I am a woman and I don't know a woman that hasn't been harassed. It being common doesn't make it ok either. Not caring to use excuses on bad behavior is improving things. It doesn't give an avenue for perverts to still be able to do things, and not be held accountable.

[JKtheMac]

It did; the Fortune article says that those are all statements made "to the Daily Mail" and if you click through to the original article all those quotes are from there.

Sort of like how every time there's a new "exclusive" story (false or true) every single website writes their own version of it but they're all just quoting the original source. I guess this has been going on forever but in the internet era it's more annoying. Instead of finding one article and then another one to back it up, we find dozens of articles all based on the same article.

Sure this is a problem, but when it comes down to it, the Daily Mail are clearly attributing their source and at the same time protecting the individual that they have spoken to. They are also printing the right to reply from Stan's lawyers so all-in-all this is a respectable and responsible news report from a national newspaper.

While it is popular to attack the Daily Mail for its reporting, their journalism is usually only suspect when it comes to political stories. There is no political slant to this article, this is them reporting something that has come to their attention and has been backed up by their own fact checking. They themselves can and have been sued for printing stories without evidence so we can assume they have satisfied themselves that the accusation is plausible and that the story is of public interest.

It is worth noting that despite the lawyer's reply there is zero evidence that anyone is involved in extortion.

P.S. I guess there is one political angle. It obfuscates the political sex scandals that have hit the current government, whom the Daily Mail support vehemently. It may be in their interest to have a few sex scandals that point elsewhere. However this wouldn't lead me to believe they are making the story up.

[Coin Biter]

Sure this is a problem, but when it comes down to it, the Daily Mail are clearly attributing their source and at the same time protecting the individual that they have spoken to. They are also printing the right to reply from Stan's lawyers so all-in-all this is a respectable and responsible news report from a national newspaper.

While it is popular to attack the Daily Mail for its reporting, their journalism is usually only suspect when it comes to political stories. There is no political slant to this article, this is them reporting something that has come to their attention and has been backed up by their own fact checking. They themselves can and have been sued for printing stories without evidence so we can assume they have satisfied themselves that the accusation is plausible and that the story is of public interest.

It is worth noting that despite the lawyer's reply there is zero evidence that anyone is involved in extortion.

P.S. I guess there is one political angle. It obfuscates the political sex scandals that have hit the current government, whom the Daily Mail support vehemently. It may be in their interest to have a few sex scandals that point elsewhere. However this wouldn't lead me to believe they are making the story up.

Without commenting on the truth of this particular story, because I have no idea, the Daily Mail, as I've remarked before, does get things wrong all the time. All newspapers do. Their clarifications column makes... interesting reading though.

And they've had some spectacular misfires. One which I've quoted on this thread, concerns their 12 April 2017 settlement for having libelled Melania Trump. That was very recent, and I'm struggling to think of a more embarrassing failure by a British newspaper last year. There was no political slant there. The Daily Mail, like all tabloid newspapers, has an interest in publishing salacious stories.

[JasonTodd428]

I say he's innocent until proven guilty and lets just let a court of law make that decision if it comes to that. That being said dementia is not an excuse for this type of behavior, assuming Stan has it. There is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior period and to use dementia as an excuse for it makes light of the victim's feelings about what happened. That kind of thing is exactly why women have trouble speaking out in the first place and that attitude needs to stop.

[stingray]

When the stories came out about Weinstein, Spacey, and others, there seemed to be a fair amount of evidence, and some of the accused men admitted fault and apologized. These guys deserve what's coming to them. Since then, though, every day; every single day, there have been accusations. Some are no doubt true, but months later, I'm pretty sure some of them are not true. They are cash grabs. James Franco has been accused of sexual misconduct, and it turns out some women feel they weren't paid enough for nude scenes. Seriously? is this sexual misconduct? If their contracts were unfair, don't sign them. They were paid the price agreed on. If they want to accuse him of unfair business practices or something, fine, but it's not sexual abuse in any way, shape, or form. Stan Lee has a lot of money. He's a target. In the now poisonous atmosphere of Hollywood, it's entirely possible he's being shaken down for money. I'm not saying the accusations are true or not true, but the guilty until proven innocent attitude of a lot of people is just not right.

[JKtheMac]

There is no cash grab element to this story whatsoever.

[JKtheMac]

Without commenting on the truth of this particular story, because I have no idea, the Daily Mail, as I've remarked before, does get things wrong all the time. All newspapers do. Their clarifications column makes... interesting reading though.

And they've had some spectacular misfires. One which I've quoted on this thread, concerns their 12 April 2017 settlement for having libelled Melania Trump. That was very recent, and I'm struggling to think of a more embarrassing failure by a British newspaper last year. There was no political slant there. The Daily Mail, like all tabloid newspapers, has an interest in publishing salacious stories.

I think you will find that the Daily Mail are not commenting on the truth of this allegation either. So unless there were no nurses that complained or talked to their reporters, or unless the agency didn’t withdraw their services the story is factually correct. It is not saying the allegations are true. Neither am I.

[stingray]

There is no cash grab element to this story whatsoever.

You know this how?

[JKtheMac]

You know this how?

Self evidently because there isn’t anyone standing up making a public statement and getting paid for it. Anything else is pure speculation and it is not a viable method of blackmail to tell the press first.