The Tide may finally be turning

[EyeKhan]

What about it "feels" wrong to you?

In the case of A Prairie Home Companion, it feels wrong that the entire body of work of a broadly beloved show that ran for 30+ years, with creative contributions from hundreds of people, is suddenly gone because the creator of that show was accused of harassing a woman that worked for him. I get that making the show gone was legal. That's not the point.

The conclusion that he is guilty as charged was made in a closed room with, maybe (it's not public knowledge), nothing like due process. Was there a chance to rebut the accusations? Was evidence presented and cross-examined? Was the judgement made based on the strength of evidence and the scope of the harm done, or simply to minimize risk for some corporate entity? Who knows? And for that matter, if he's guilty, his actions ought to be made public. He deserves to be exposed.

To be clear, assuming he is guilty, I believe without reservation that nobody should have to suffer that shit in the work place. And, especially those who use their authority positions to coerce, should be dealt with. But how is this particular remedy just? Shouldn't he, and whoever looked the other way to enable him, be the one(s) punished, and in a way that is proportional to the harm done? A LOT of people have been punished here, presumably including the harrassed woman. It's conceivable that she might even regret going public, given that the show has apparently been erased from the public domain.

Do you think it would be just if every film Harvey Weinstein had any involvement with were suddenly no longer available for anyone to see and no longer generate any kind of royalties for anyone who worked on them?

[GGT]

Just because A Prairie Home Companion is harder to find on-line doesn't mean it's suddenly "gone". There are books and DVDs, people recorded those radio shows at home, and it's archived/stored somewhere. So it's not like Keillor's "entire body of work" has simply vanished into thin air.

We have no idea if the 'closed room' deal was part of contractual third party arbitration, or if Keillor's lawyers made the deal to delete on-line material in exchange for not clawing back millions in a counter-suit, or something else. He had previous law suits (a divorce, and a building code violation) that were also about property ownership (and millions of dollars), so it wouldn't be surprising if he made a private deal that didn't make sense to his audience. Just because the public doesn't know the legal or contractual details doesn't mean there was NO due process.

I get what you're saying, and yes it can feel wrong (or unjust) when we can't immediately access the material we like or want....because it's gotten wrapped up in legal fights between legal teams, regarding issues like content, copy, platform, patent, or property rights. But what bothers me more is that 'justice' can still be bought, or avoided, by the highest paid lawyers. There are real victims here, so don't delude yourself into thinking Keillor is a victim, or that you are, because it's harder to find his work on-line.

[GGT]

Do you think it would be just if every film Harvey Weinstein had any involvement with were suddenly no longer available for anyone to see and no longer generate any kind of royalties for anyone who worked on them?

But that's why the entertainment industry has Unions, and they have legal teams.