Maybe someday they will call this response the Goldberg-Polanski syndrome.

https://jezebel.com/5369395/whoopi-on-roman-polanski-it-wasnt-rape-rape
(When you lose Jezebel….)

Cue Alexander Pope:
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

This could explain why the Left makes such vitriolic claims that some Conservative or Republican person or idea is being “normed” by simply being discussed or presented.
They know how it works, because they have experienced it — and because they depend on the same psychological phenomenon to push their own agenda and ideology.

Bernard Godard, who was considered the “Monsieur Islam” of the French Ministry of the Interior between 1997 and 2014, was well acquainted with Mr Ramadan, a prominent Islamic scholar and grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

When asked whether he had any knowledge of the rape and sexual assault that Mr Ramadan is now being accused of, Mr Godard insisted he had “never heard of rapes” and that he was “stunned”.

“That he had many mistresses, that he consulted sites, that girls were brought to the hotel at the end of his lectures, that he invited them to undress, that some resisted and that he could become violent and aggressive, yes, but I have never heard of rapes, I am stunned,” he told French magazine L’Obs.

Hollywood doesn’t even pay taxes. Not the one that matters.

So where do you think Congress is getting their donations from? Hollywood launders it. So is Congress going to do what you want, how much can you bribe em with? Far less than the hotties from Hollywood like Monroe and the money bags that come with it.

Copyrights are probably a money sink for the MPAA. Because they have to pay money just to crush the competition. This isn’t their income, the way the propaganda says.

Only if you believe as the MPAA does, that they are losing money via piracy.

That’s sort of like saying TEsla’s money came from the government, because the government allowed his patents.

For the following: I am not a lawyer but I haven’t come across anything about how enforceable the NDA, might be. Outside of the Streisand effect. I’d be interested in a better informed opinion.

As far as NDA’s are concerned, they are just a form of contract and subject to all of the limitations. Especially the public interest. I can’t imagine that one could be enforced against disclosure of criminal conduct. Especially one that was signed in advance. Those like Weinstein’s that were executed after the fact undoubtedly contained language that defined his conduct as lawful and consensual. While this would make a prosecution difficult, it would not prevent the government from concluding that a crime had, in fact, taken place.

Some authorities might even look at such language as “redefining black as white” and as evidence of bad faith. This likely puts a lawyer drafting such an agreement walking close to the edge of collusion and accessory. That’s how I would interpret it if I were on a jury.

Actually, as digital entertainment, the money DOES come thru the gov’t protection of copyright monopoly.

Digital info could be distributed “according to the wants” (not the “needs”). Info socialism, unlike real products, could work.

The gov’t should stop enforcing digital copyrights.

It’s nice to dream of, since if you came from the Left, you are an apostate for converting. And the Left, like Islam, has specific penalties for apostasy.