“Silencing” accusers
I have no idea whether Bill O’Reilly’s accusers are telling the truth about him and what he did. But for the sake of argument, let’s say they are.
Are they being “silenced” by O’Reilly? That’s the premise of this headline in the NY Times: “How Bill O’Reilly Silenced His Accusers.”
Conjures up a mental image of something very underhanded and maybe even violent, doesn’t it? What’s actually being described, though, is an out-of-court settlement which involves the usual payment for the usual silence:
Settlement agreements between Bill O’Reilly and two of his accusers ”” made public for the first time on Wednesday ”” filled in previously unknown details about tactics employed by the former Fox News host to silence women who came forward with sexual harassment allegations against him.
The documents show that two women who reached settlements, Andrea Mackris and Rebecca Gomez Diamond, were required to turn over all evidence, including audio recordings and diaries, to Mr. O’Reilly. In addition, Ms. Mackris was required to disclaim the materials “as counterfeit and forgeries” if they ever became public…
Strict confidentiality was the goal of the settlements. If the women were found to breach the agreements, they would be forced to return all the money they had received, forfeit any future payments and pay Mr. O’Reilly’s legal fees.
This is news? This is a description of a legal settlement, apparently freely entered into by the parties. O’Reilly’s settlements number six (that are known) for a total of 45 million dollars. That’s a lot of money going out.
As for the “silencing”:
In a statement, Fredric S. Newman, a lawyer for Mr. O’Reilly, reiterated earlier statements that Mr. O’Reilly had settled the disputes to protect his children and said that the agreements were “fully negotiated by these plaintiffs who were ably advised by experienced counsel.”
“Confidentiality and arbitration were two critical terms for which Mr. O’Reilly bargained in good faith,” Mr. Newman said.
Confidentiality is usually a part of an out-of-court settlement. These women agreed to be “silenced,” and they were paid good money for their silence.
This may seem like quibbling on my part. After all, the women are silent, and it is as a result of the negotiations with O’Reilly. But “silenced” is a word used to create a certain impression in readers—many of whom don’t go on to read the article, as the Times is well aware—a perception involving bullying and coercion and something underhanded, a further victimization of women who are already alleging victimization.
But unless you think the entire system of out-of-court settlements is underhanded, the only sketchy thing about this agreement is that the lawyers for one of the women during the settlement phase later went on to work for O’Reilly, constituting a possible conflict of interest. That’s all I see, anyway.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say they are.
how original..
not like anyone would take the other side for the sake of argument, which is the harder side with all the damage and negation whether or not you actually did something or not!!
EVERY SEXUAL issue today ALWAYS starts with the automatic guilt of the male – ALWAYS…
NEVER does it start with the assumption of innocence on the accused… EVER
so yeah.
lets start with the most common, easy to argue, safest point without any worry about something wrong in it
Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives
how is that even physically possible? oh, cause we no longer make the distinction between rape and sodomy.. unless you can stack the law [though notice, you can make all the nasty jokes bout picking up soap, and all manner of things for the guys, but rape jokes?]
BETTINA ARNDT writes exactly the same stuff i have written for ages but is more famous… and thats how she makes her living.. [and i sent you the email that was published from a friend that it was sent to]
Silent Victims
http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/silent-victims.pdf
If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them. David Angier
Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience. Catherine Comins
[edited for length by n-n]
My ex who robbed a bank, faked a murder and more… and i am still living it… decades later… lack of jobs, lack of career. judges told me i had no rights… and tons of things that will never come up in these discussions as that is not the side anyone starts with!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and to make sure no one listens to what hanna, mcelroy, etc have een saying… and even more on youtube, mens movement and on and on… peterson anyone?
but feminist Jezebel will set things straight by repeating the same old numbers and so on and doing that thing they do, that no one cares they do… until waht?
He Said, She Said: The Mythical History of the False Rape Allegation
https://jezebel.com/he-said-she-said-the-mythical-history-of-the-false-ra-1720945752
right.. to take back the narrative i guess…
this is just the set up above… but note.. what the F does Phaedra who 99% cant tell you a thing about any more than Themis have to do with the point today?
nothing… all she is doing is going back to the oppressive era to “prove” in the feminist way that – its always been put down this way and so on..
Men are always wrong
Women are never wrong
If women are wrong its because of men
Simple dialectic – apply liberally like Adobo
[edited for length by n-n]
The goal is turn NDAs about sex into bribery and extortion. The motive for doing this should be obvious to anyone with an IQ of body temperature.
Artfldgr:
Once again, one would think you’d never read most of the posts on this blog. I’ve written many many many posts on the subject of false accusations of rape and harassment, and of the assumption of innocence on the part of men (the latter of which I have consistently and repeatedly championed). I have emphasized over and over that “believe the women” is a pernicious and dangerous point of view, and it is not my point of view at all.
In this particular post I am assuming for the sake of argument that the women are telling the truth in this situation re O’Reilly. Do you know what “for the sake of argument” means? Did you even read the rest of the post? Because the point of the rest of the post is to say that even if they ARE telling the truth (and it is certainly possible they are telling the truth, although we cannot know) the idea that they are somehow being silenced against their will, or by coercion—an idea the Times’ headline is designed to suggest—is not supported by any evidence.
That is the point of this point, and that is why I am assuming for the sake of the argument presented in this post, that they are telling the truth. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are actually telling the truth or not.
Artfldgr:
I think the best example of my previous work on the subject of false rape accusations is this article I wrote for PJ in 2014 (linked to on my blog here). I suggest everyone read it.
(By the way, that article was written towards the earlier parts of the UVA “Jackie” rape accusation, and before it was definitely proven that she was lying.)
I wish we would distinguish between sexual harassment, and gender harassment.
Was Bill O’Reilly seeking sex with these women, which was rebuffed, or was he demeaning their abilities to perform their jobs because they were women?
“I wish we would distinguish between sexual harassment, and gender harassment.
Was Bill O’Reilly seeking sex with these women, which was rebuffed, or was he demeaning their abilities to perform their jobs because they were women?”
There’s (at least) a third option. The guy is an a55hole and is using whatever weapon he can against others.
Having not follwed this drama, I could be mistaken, of course.
“Settlement documents… made public for the first time on Wednesday”
How did that happen? I guess I’ll go read the article to see if I can find out. Ok, I’m back, they were released as part of a defamation lawsuit. How can that be if it was all supposed to be confidential?
Point taken on the headline and its implications. The NYT cannot be trusted to simply report.
If that figure is accurate, then $45 million among 6 women is an average of $7.5 million each. That is such a large amount that it indicates that something unpleasant happened. No one pays out money like that unless it is serious.
Compare that to the $130,000 that Donald Trump’s lawyer paid Stormy Daniels a few weeks before the election. That amount indicates nothing really happened, since it’s essentially “shut up and go away” money, especially important given the timing and the hostile media.
I wonder what Bill O’Reilly’s children really think about this, since it is $45 million less from his estate that would have otherwise gone to them. And with all the other sex scandals going on today, whatever happened to just getting some hookers and call girls? Think of the savings!
Well Yankee, if we are venturing into tongue-in-cheek territory, I will just say that Bill O’Reilly can have my silence for half that average settlement amount.
He paid $45 million and got nothing. In fact, it got a whole lot worse. He should sue and get his money back. Refund.
Yankee: “And with all the other sex scandals going on today, whatever happened to just getting some hookers and call girls? Think of the savings!”
My thoughts exactly!
Bill O’Reilly doesn’t have the Demoncrat connections to get the sex slaves from overseas. For that, he’d need Epstein and Kennedies.