Made his fortune from punching people in the head, so that is such a weird example of a person that you are expecting others to empathise with or support. A whole lot of people find sports that result in brain injuries to be pretty distasteful.
That people choose to find it distasteful is fine with me.
I'm talking about Mike Tyson, the convicted rapist, not Mike Tyson as a boxer.
Just a reminder to never talk to the FBI without a lawyer
Hmmm
"The grand jury returned an indictment on June 4, 2003, charging Stewart with conspiracy, obstruction of justice, making false statements, and securities fraud." https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/...
I think she beat "securities fraud", but was convicted on conspiracy, obstruction, and making false statements:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040307121033/https://money.cnn...
So, yeah, technically she didn't get convicted of insider trading/securities fraud, but managed a felony conviction around the charges.
Good catch. So I guess we can't easily dismiss Martha from our category of people we refuse to promote.
Anyone promoting Bill Cosby the person is definitely doing something questionable, which is the relevant point.
I'm bringing up Ford and Gandhi because I think they're generally considered respectable, but could be accused of being in the category of those to "shun" based on verbal statements or opinions. I am not aware that either did anything. Are we shunning people because they've advocated opinions that in their time weren't controversial, but are now?
Bill Cosby's conviction was overturned on a technicality. Do we shun him even if the courts couldn't/didn't convict him?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-bill-cosbys-conviction...
Or similarly, "unconvicted" but alleged unsavory characters, perhaps pop musicians, TV hosts, presidents, presidential candidates, and so on.
Do you just shun everyone who has simply been accused of misconduct? What if the accusers recant or are found to be lying? It's happened.
Crystal Mangum, now incarcerated for murder, has recanted her rape accusation against the Duke la crosse players:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-falsely-accused-duke-lacros...
> Bill Cosby's conviction was overturned on a technicality. Do we shun him even if the courts couldn't/didn't convict him?
Yes, the public is well entitled to shun him on the basis of what he did indeed confess to .. that is entirely orthogonal to that confession being rejected on a technicality and thus not being part of a formal legal conviction.
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/bill-cosby-quaaludes-s...
So he appears to have confessed at least to be a drug dealer.
With Cosby's testimony included he was convicted, it and the womens testimonies were found to be sufficient under law to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
When the testimony was excluded on technical grounds the statements by Cosby weren't demonstrated to be false or questioned in any way, they were simply set aside, as true as they ever were.
Again, the general public is entitled to shun Cosby on the basis of the testimonies presented including his own words which haven't been discredited, just excluded.
But my point is not the minutiae of Cosby's trial, but that he is "unconvicted" - and if you want to claim to not encourage rapists/murderers/the corrupt are we talking about:
1. THE CONVICTED: people who have been convicted of these felonious crimes (e.g. Stewart, Tyson, ),
2. THE UNCONVICTED: unconvicted people who have made statements relating to these crimes, which may not even be crimes in their country or era (Cosby, Ford, Gandhi), or
3. THE ACCUSED: people who have simply been accused of these crimes (i.e. #metoo or other public accusations with no conviction and public denials, Woody Allen, Sam Altman, etc)
Mike Tyson was convicted of rape, so I assume you are opposed to Mike Tyson and "promoting" him in any way. In your actions, I assume you refused to discuss the most recent Tyson vs Paul fight, and noted, calmly, cooly, to anyone mentioning it that "Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist, and I don't promote rapists."
That's very reasonable.
Martha Steward was convicted of insider trading. I think that could be called a kind of corruption. I assume you refuse to purchase any of her products, use her cooking recipes, and so on. When her name is mentioned you cooly, calmy, note to anyone listening that "Martha Stewart is a convicted felon, convicted of insider trading. I refuse to promote her in any way".
Ok, that seems reasonable too.
But there are some "edgy" cases, maybe, like what about Mel Gibson, who while drunk and under arrest went on a racist rant. Do you reject all Mel Gibson movies and cooly, calmy note to everyone that "Mel Gibson is a racist, and I don't promote racism" when the Mad Max or Lethal Weapon franchises are mentioned? Despite his objectionable drunken rant, he doesn't appear to have acted on his statements that I'm aware of, nor repeated them while sober (quite the opposite).
Are you rejecting people for their opinions about rape, corruption, and racism or their actions?
Gandhi, for example, was said to have used racial epithets for some groups. Is Gandhi a racist? And Henry Ford wrote a lengthy book considered racist. Do you reject the Ford Motor Company (and many existing German auto makers have unfortunate links to the German nationalists of WW2)?
There are similar cases around accusations of corruption, rape/sexual assault, and so on: sometimes they aren't convicted, sometimes they are let free. Look at Bill Cosby. He was convicted and it appears let free, but on a technicality.
Do you reject all discussion of The Fat Albert Show and The Cosby Show because of Bill Cosby's rape conviction? Joe Biden and more recently Sam Altman have been accused of sexual misconduct. Do you reject them too? Is a conviction enough or is a #metoo accusation sufficient?