Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

[ponderingturtle]

I don't mean that sort of relationship.

In nearly all relationships there will be an imbalance of status, financial stability, intellect, experience, assets or the like. And I don't mean just romantic (or "romantic") relationships. Between employer and employee, between contractor and contracted, even between friends or colleagues, there will be an imbalance in power in some way. That's just the way life is.

Exactly as a wise man said "when you are rich they let you do it" You don't need consent you just go and start kissing them. Neil and Donald have something in common.

 

[autumn1971]

Well, then see the message above yours about what I think about pseudo-moralistic mob rule

It’s just a free-market economy.
The “mob” that you seem to be angry at is consumers. If the CEO thinks that it will lose money, they should adjust to that.

 

[Planigale]

Prostitution is legal in England, so a contract of sex for accommodation or a holiday is legal. However, being a brothel keeper isn't, so it might be argued if you were the owner of the property and your tenant was having sex with you for a pecuniary benefit that would be illegal because you would be keeping a (very exclusive) brothel.

 

[theprestige]

It might also be argued that Gaiman seems to have developed a predatory relationship towards more than one woman over whom he enjoyed some power. It might be further argued that this kind of behavior is bad, or even very bad. It might be further argued that society is not wrong to recoil in disgust at such revelations.

I think these arguments are much more important, and much more to the point, than the argument that Gaiman didn't technically do anything illegal.

 

[mumblethrax]

Well, then we've been talking past each other. Because I was talking about the former, not the latter.

Which is why I pointed out that the former didn't happen, by anyone's account. Treating it like it did is just making stuff up.

Well, probably, but people enter illegal verbal contracts all the time.

All such contracts are void and unenforceable.

But then that also brings up the question of how can one be coerced with that, unless it's a deal with the mafia. If a landlord can't legally unilaterally add a no-pets addendum -- and yes, they can't -- please explain to me slowly how can they add a "pussy required" one?

Theeeeeeeeeeey caaaaaaaaan't. Like I said, threatening someone with eviction if they don't have sex with you is quid pro quo sexual harassment (at best). That's why we know they aren't "prostitutes", and are in fact victims of (at least) sexual harassment (provided that their accounts are accurate).

I mean, if what they're doing is illegal, doesn't it make more sense to lawyer up and turn the tables than acquiesce?

Does it come as news to you that people sometimes do not choose the most advisable course of action? I mean, you certainly didn't.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, then if "Theeeeeeeeeeey caaaaaaaaan't" coerce you to accept extra clauses, and it would be unenforceable anyway, then it's not coercion, is it?

That said, sure, sexual harassment it is then.

 

[mumblethrax]

Well, then if "Theeeeeeeeeeey caaaaaaaaan't" coerce you to accept extra clauses, it's not coercion, is it?

No, that doesn't follow. If I stick a gun in your face and tell you to sign a contract or else, that contract is voided precisely because it is coerced. The ability to enter into an enforceable contract is not a necessary element of coercion.

 

[HansMustermann]

No, that doesn't follow. If I stick a gun in your face and tell you to sign a contract or else, that contract is voided precisely because it is coerced. The ability to enter into an enforceable contract is not a necessary element of coercion.

Except what was he threatening them WITH? That he might give them a legal 2 months eviction notice, assuming it's actually a new clause? (Which would make it an allegation of an illegal act, namely, landlord harassment, so you'd figure SOMEONE would actually go to the police sooner or later. We're not talking about having Tony Soprano as a landlord to make you afraid to speak up.)

For coercion to work, the threat must be worse than the harm. In your gun-to-the head scenario, it works because presumably the contract is less bad than a bullet in the head. On the other hand, if someone says, sign to give me a kidney or I'll say some mean words to you, I'd tell them to *ahem* travel and copulate.

So what exactly was the threat to not only make them accept, but also keep them from going to the cops.

 

[HansMustermann]

Also, speaking of making things up, are you SURE that it wasn't beforehand? Because the UK has, or at least had, a decades long and proud tradition of sex-for-rent as an upfront condition. They even had barely-veiled ads in the newspapers for that. And apparently enough tenants taking that deal. Unlike the USA, it wasn't something unimaginable, but something that did happen, and people were even advertising in newspapers. That is, until recently when they started treating it as an offence. (Which I suppose might be what prompted Gaiman to start writing hush-up checks.)

 

[mumblethrax]

Except what was he coercing them WITH? That he might give them a legal 2 months eviction notice, assuming it's actually a new clause?

Yes, he was threatening her with eviction. There was no "new clause".

For coercion to work, the threat must be worse than the harm.

And apparently it was, to her. To quote the woman herself: "Wallner said: 'And he can say it was consensual. But why would I do that? It was because I was scared of losing my place', characterising Gaiman’s treatment of her as “sexual abuse.”

 

[mumblethrax]

Also, speaking of making things up, are you SURE that it wasn't beforehand?

There is no evidence that it was.

Because the UK has, or at least had, a decades long and proud tradition of sex-for-rent as an upfront condition.

I don't get the relevance. This happened in New York.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, he was threatening her with eviction. There was no "new clause".

The sex would be the "new clause".

And apparently it was, to her. To quote the woman herself: "Wallner said: 'And he can say it was consensual. But why would I do that? It was because I was scared of losing my place', characterising Gaiman’s treatment of her as “sexual abuse.”

What I still don't hear is the part where he actually said that threat.

To use your gun example, there's a difference between me signing because you actually pulled out a gun, or even said you would, and me just being afraid that you might pull a gun.

 

[mumblethrax]

The sex would be the "new clause".

It was not a "clause". It was the act coerced.

What I still don't hear is the part where he actually said that threat.

Maybe you should at least vaguely familiarize yourself with the accusations before deciding the women involved were prostitutes and not victims?

Wallner said that whenever she resisted his sexual advances, Gaiman would tell her Palmer wanted the house back where she lived with her three daughters, as well as the studio she worked in. Wallner recalled one occasion when she said Gaiman told her: ‘‘but you take care of me and I’ll take care of you”, understanding it to be a reference to what she called the “sexual trade”.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Prostitution is legal in England, so a contract of sex for accommodation or a holiday is legal. However, being a brothel keeper isn't, so it might be argued if you were the owner of the property and your tenant was having sex with you for a pecuniary benefit that would be illegal because you would be keeping a (very exclusive) brothel.

I very much doubt it. Paying your girlfriend's rent is not running a business. He would not have drawn any income from it.

 

[novaphile]

No, that doesn't follow. If I stick a gun in your face and tell you to sign a contract or else, that contract is voided precisely because it is coerced. The ability to enter into an enforceable contract is not a necessary element of coercion.

Interesting, is it void ab initio or voidable if challenged in court?

(I'd always heard the latter.)

 

[mumblethrax]

Interesting, is it void ab initio or voidable if challenged in court?

Any contract signed under duress is void ab initio.

 

[dudalb]

It’s just a free-market economy.
The “mob” that you seem to be angry at is consumers. If the CEO thinks that it will lose money, they should adjust to that.

Angry consumers indirectly in many cases.
Direct threat is advertisers pulling their ads because they don't want their product or company associated with a show.

 

[HansMustermann]

Maybe you should at least vaguely familiarize yourself with the accusations before deciding the women involved were prostitutes and not victims?

Maybe you should at least vaguely familiarize yourself with what has been common wisdom since this was called JREF: I don't have any duty to do your research for you.

I was explicitly only commenting on what the information presented in this thread. The prostitution thing in fact explicitly in response to the phrasing of the quote in #27. Which mentioned nothing about her already being a tenant. But anyway, that message even contains the phrase, "the way it's phrased".

If you know what source proves it's something else, it's up to you to share that evidence. I don't even care if it's about sex or religion or whatever, it's not my job to slog through several podcasts to see that you're right.

If it worked like that, then religion would be downright unassailable, ever since they invented the "sophisticated theology" defence

 

[Roger Ramjets]

For coercion to work, the threat must be worse than the harm. In your gun-to-the head scenario, it works because presumably the contract is less bad than a bullet in the head.

No, it just has to be perceived by the victim as worse. If Gaiman had tried it on me I would've been out of there like a shot, no matter what he offered me to 'make the threat less than the harm'.

 

[mumblethrax]

Maybe you should at least vaguely familiarize yourself with what has been common wisdom since this was called JREF: I don't have any duty to do your research for you.

Christ. I’m not asking you to do my research. I’m pointing out that forming opinions without informing yourself about the basic allegations is just a waste of time.

You’re not doing skepticism here, you’re just valorizing your own ignorance.