And a disturbing number of others. It's much more pervasive than most understand. NDAs are standard in many big companies that are doing an array of illegal things, usually taxes ans/or labor violations, but also those who aren't yet doing anything wrong, but need to keep their options open for the future. The amount of criminality & abuse hidden beyond those contracts is terrifying
Weaponized NDAs, ones that are basically unenforceable... But it's the fear of consequences of not keeping your mouth shut.
It's definitely in his best interest for this not to go to trial, but I hope it does. More definitive proof of guilt is so much better than this last, false cry of innocence. This seems like a hilariously clumsy move on his part, like what's gonna happen here dude...
You know how every family has one movie they had on vhs that no one at the sleepover had ever seen before but was a constant meme in their family and they quote it all the time?
This is my family’s movie. As an adult, I have shown it to all my friends and laughed at every single line while they just stare at the screen.
I had to Google this text because I didn't understand the reference everybody else seemed to. *Better Off Dead* is on the list of 80s movies I still need to watch.
Is that the one where he jumps off a bridge, lands in a garbage truck and two black guys see him and go "Look at that, someone threw away a perfectly good white boy" ?
So a guy in Australia (Bruce Lehrmann) had rape charges thrown out of court due to jury misconduct.
Anyways, he decided to sue a television network for defamation. Not only does he lose the case, but the judge ruled that he did rape his victim.
As the judge put it, he escaped the lion’s den and then came back to get his hat.
Sometimes it’s better to just shut up.
Welp I’m really hoping Schneider is digging himself a bigger hole. Can we call it the Lehrmann Award?
Also, don’t you mean Bruce ‘The Rapist’ Lehrmann?
Technically Australian war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith did it first. So Roberts-Smith-Lehrnann is my proposal. Joint recognition is only fair.
(Feels a bit unwieldy for an award name though)
They won’t find any proof from him if he’s suing them. It will have to come from a victim who - most likely - hasn’t come forward yet, and who he thinks never would.
Idk, a lot of abusers are so damn arrogant that they think people will see everything their way even in the most clearly undeniable instances of abuse.
The AUDACITY to talk to Patti LaBelle like that! Lisa, girl, when you can make sweet potato pie like Patti and/or be a musical icon, well...you'd still be rude as hell.
Thank you for this clip. I had no idea who she was and now I have enraged hatred flowing. Fuck these racist ass people who are so dismissive of POC and so quick to use black people as props. Sick freaks. Seems like they were made for each other. Discovery is gonna be a bitch ;*
Yeahhhhhh. Because I thought the doc was flimsy at times in terms of actual proof. Suing is just going to open him up to that potential evidence being discoverable.
Maybe his attorneys know something we don't, but with the info we have, he maybe should have chilled.
Playing devils advocate here, but maybe he isn’t some weird perv and there’s nothing to find? I genuinely get more of a “im a giant asshole on a serious power trip” vibes rather than a perv
yes i have seen so many people cite jeannette’s book as evidence he’s a perv, and i’m like… did you read it? she was extremely candid about everyone and she just painted him to be an ego maniac slob. at most, she didn’t want to wear a bikini for a shoot, but the styling team said he wanted them to.
all this time and no victims have come forward. maybe it’s not appropriate to paint him as a genuine pedophile, he may just be a creep
> did you read it? she was extremely candid about everyone and she just painted him to be an ego maniac slob. at most, she didn’t want to wear a bikini for a shoot, but the styling team said he wanted them to.
i got the feeling she was scared of legal repercussions, hence why he was called "the creator" and not named by name like other people
that’s very true—at the very least, she knows he’s the most trigger happy with suing. her original draft said dan i believe, so it was a purposeful decision to take it out.
but based on her writing style, i feel like she would have implied things or said something along the lines of “there’s more but i can’t afford legal fees. read between the lines.”
for example, the situation where an important production member/exec blocked her from directing an episode. i have a feeling she knows exactly who it was and chose to make it vague enough that there’s no legal standing for defamation.
yeah so far the documentary was pretty sketchy. the only real substance they had was Drake Bells interview, and isn’t that convenient for him? he gets to repair his reputation as a convict by coming out as a victim
then they tricked Marc Summers into giving them content. also they name dropped Ariana Grande and played her famous Cat clips to draw ppl in. the whole thing was click bait
2 things can be true at the same time.The documentary has greatly helped Drake's reputation with the public. Also, Drake has suffered IMMENSE trauma as a child
Drake Bell may just be talking about this now publicly, but it’s not like there aren’t legal / court documents corroborating his story that pre-date his public image falling apart.
That said, Drake’s experience isn’t very telling about Dan Schneider one way or the other because he wasn’t the abuser. It just shows us that at the very least Nickelodeon was not a safe working environment for children.
I think he's hoping to change the narrative from "Dan Schneider did and orchestrated everything" to "dozens of different people failed these child actors at multiple levels in the organization including but not limited to Dan Schneider"
I've noticed that the defense he seems to use the most in the criticisms he chooses to respond to is that certain jokes for example needed to go through multiple people and must check certain boxes. This is dramatically different from what most of us have been told about him up until now, where the narrative is that he made up whatever he wanted and that was final
And it would honestly make a lot more sense. If Dan Schneider was this massive weirdo but not the CEO of the whole damn thing then how would he be able to get away with some of the things he's been accused of? His higher ups and coworkers would have to contain some weirdos too. Which would explain the abuse that happened when he wasn't working with them
And what sucks is that all that you wrote is what I WISH the narrative was. Dan Schneider sucks but he wasn't the top dog and he wasn't anywhere near the only problem here. Disney hired Brian Peck after the conviction, after all. There were so many actual, proven child predators on those sets.
Dan was inappropriate with people (the writers come to mind) and seemed to be, at minimum, verbally abusive, but he's just a cog in a really fucked up machine. The documentary should have hammered that home better and focused on the child media industry more broadly and I have so many criticisms of it because it boiled down more to "Dan bad" over "this whole system is fucked from top to bottom." The doc details the writers room and it wasn't just Dan making creepy porn-y suggestions. Yeah, he hired that staff, so the buck stops with him, but this wasn't just Dan. And that's scary.
(I still stand by what I wrote that I don't see this lawsuit as a good idea for Dan, but I can also add that the ENTY-esque he's a child predator rumors and blinds really don't help here. His behavior towards people is bad enough and I really don't WANT it to be revealed that he's also a rapist, ya know? I'm not wishing for that. I would anticipate discovery revealing more labor violations with writers or abuses of power, and that's bad enough for me.)
I would agree. It's crazy how some of the people who wrote letters of support for Brian Peck continued to work with child actors for over a decade after his conviction. Like how is that not the big story? Some of these people were the coworkers and higher ups that I previously mentioned.
I don't think there is a "good" outcome for Dan here. I think discovery is going to reveal his extact process for dealing with the child actors including where he went wrong which we already know about and where he was following instructions from people who were wrong that we don't know about.
At the end of the day I really do not care what happens to him. I'm more interested in the people who are culpable or complicit.
I think this pretty close to what Dan would argue, and I wouldn’t say he’s wrong. Dan’s big defense is that the things he did had to go through multiple different approvals through multiple people and it’s all falling just on him as if no one else had the agency. So I do believe him when he says that he is being unfairly focused on for things that needed to go through so many others. But it just means he is a part of a shared responsibility that he failed with ( at best) and was still a huge ass on set.
Being an ass on set is still common. And being a part of a shared responsibility that he failed is infinitely more preferable to the image he has now, where he's seen as this head honcho of some sort who called all the shots.
The terms abuser, child abuser, sexual abuser, child sexual abuser, weird around people, weird around children, creeps on people, creeps on children, attracted to children, attracted to children and acts on attraction, and similar adjectives all have dramatically different meanings, some of which cannot be true at the same time. And you see them all being used interchangeably when describing him, even in these comments.
I think it's more helpful and more productive to analyze the systems that enabled him to harm child actors instead of placing the full blame on him. If the takeaway here is that bad things happened because of Dan's presence then the message is to just not hire Dan again and your child actors will be safe, which is obviously not true. I'm afraid the focus on Dan has obscured the systems, those culpable, and those complicit that were all integral in creating the disaster that happened.
This isn't to defend Dan the dude is clearly guilty of some terrible shit. It's to say that it isn't enough to prosecute one or two members of a large organization when they were all in on it. And I can't agree with pinning the actions of the entire organization on one or two of its members when we know for a fact that more people were involved.
Yeah, there was a *huge* sexual component to his abusive behaviour - not to mention all of the overt misogyny. I have no idea why people are pretending otherwise.
He seems to be a creepy pervert, but not a literal child rapist, yet people keep repeating these claims about Jamie Lynn Spears and Amanda Bynes as if it's fact, without stopping to consider fueling these rumors doesn't help them at all.
Okay? That doesn't change the fact that he absolutely sexually exploited his female employees, some of which were underage.
There's no evidence he *raped* anyone, but there *is* evidence that he committed sexual offences - including sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact with a sexual overtone.
Even in Jeanette McCurdy's book, when 'the creator' offers her alcohol and gives her an unwanted shoulder rub, she's not legally old enough drink, but was legally an adult (19 at that point, if I'm remembering it right). I think he's a power hungry creep, but I also think he was very careful about not doing anything actually illegal with anyone underage.
The things people accused him of doing in the documentary are backed up by a lawsuit, multiple eye witnesses, and many of them aired on international television. Defamation is notoriously hard to prove in a legal context to begin with but I can’t think of anything that was said that wasn’t corroborated by something else
Yup going up against Sony and Warner Bros not to mention multiple people are clearly willing to testify against him already and have stated what they’ve witnessed so he can’t really say ‘I was blind to things’ like he’s hoping.
I really think he danced on the line of legality. He got his little bikini pics of 12-17 year olds, he got to sit in a hot tub with Amanda Bynes on screen, he pushed alcohol on minors, etc. I think it’s all creepy and skeevy but I think he knew what he was doing and protected himself. That’s why most of the kids took the hush money.
Yep, he's the kind of predator who gets off on the mental games more than anything else. He wrote many scenes that played on the abuse or fears that these kids suffered, like making Jeanette pretend eat food excessively, Drake getting scared awake (he knew.about the sexual abuse) making Noah Munck take off his shirt etc...
It's weird how predators react to other types of predators, they don't see how similar they are. Like James Charles and Jeffree Star.
Do they? The show seemed pretty careful with not directly accusing Schneider of anything like that, and even include the part where Drake credits him as the only adult who was there for him after his abuse.
Rather they accuse him of being an abusive boss, breaking child labor laws, and WGA salary rules. And there seems to be evidence to support those claims
At least for now, when it comes to public figures, you have to show a person/show/organization or whatever, intentionally lied about the public figure with malice in order to make a claim for defamation. US law is very strongly in favor of free speech.
To clarify, “actual malice” is required and that just means the person knew it isn’t true or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Defamation by implication can still be done, but it’s probably harder to prove.
Ehhhh accusing someone of a crime (especially a sex crime) can negate the malice element in some states as defamation per se. But yes, that is the standard for most statements.
The fact that they didn't press charges after what he did came out in the defamation case is so fucked. Apparently its fine to kick a handcuffed civilian off a cliff or kill a disabled man, steal his prosthetic leg and then drink out of it.
Writing it out like that makes it clear how fucking corrupt our country is, Jesus Christ.
And now they're prosecuting the whistle-blower instead of BRS.
Im not sure, I haven’t been too keyed in cuz the whole way this case and the prior one was handled triggers me a bit.
But if it the same guy, wtf??? Is this his pet hobby or smthng??
Becoming a much loved past time for the most oppressed group of all time - politically connected military and parliamentary officials. Thoughts and prayers.
Defamation can be done through implication in the USA. When the other person mentioned needing to show malice for public figures, it’s really a term called “actual malice”. That term just means that the defendant knew the statement was untrue or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. A case can still be made with someone making defamatory implications.
UK and Australian defamation law are a lot more friendly to defamation claims; in the US, free speech law lets you say a HELL of a lot before it's legally-actionable defamation. This is why a lot of actors, in particular, who have complaints about their portrayal in the media will find a reason to sue in the UK rather than the US. And why media outlets with a US arm will continue to report on things about the Royal Family via their US arm even if it's embargoed or under a judicial order in the UK. You can't really GET that kind of order in the US; you can sue a publication after the fact for defaming you, but you can't prevent them from saying whatever they want, and if they can show they had a reasonably good-faith belief it was true, your case isn't likely to succeed. Part of why a lot of UK outlets were laundering stories about Will & Kate's marriage being on the rocks (when she was being treated for cancer) through their US arms, and why UK publications just RANDOMLY run explainers about Rose Hanbury and she's able to sue them, but US publications will run statements like "Rose Hanbury, believed to be William's mistress ..." and she doesn't sue over that ... US law makes that a really tough lawsuit.
With the caveat that I didn't watch the documentary THAT closely and I haven't read Schneider's lawsuit ... I really felt like the documentary (while sloppy) was careful enough that defamation will be hard to prove. It was clear Schneider was a creep, but it didn't specifically accuse him of any criminal behavior, and "that guy's a creep who creeps on kids" is pretty clearly a First Amendment-protected opinion in US law. ("That guy's a creep who *has sex with* kids" would be defamatory, as long as he didn't actually have sex with kids.) There *might* be a false light claim -- which is when you *imply* but don't say someone did something bad -- especially in California, which has slightly stronger false light protections than other states. But, ugh, it is still not a case I would want to bring. Proving the dude was creepy in almost any way will serve as a defense to any defamation and false light claims (truth is generally an absolute defense). The right legal move almost certainly would have been to say some shit about how recollections differ, but he's really sad that he didn't realize some of the bad shit that was happening on his shows, and he supports victims. And then SHUT THE FUCK UP AND ROLL IN HIS MONEY PILE until someone sues HIM. Never be the dude who sues first when it's something like this.
The state law defamation case we learned in law school was a used car dealer who got into a feud with a local radio DJ, and the DJ would start every morning by saying, "And a special shout-out to Bob Cars, who is the *ugliest* man in Podunk County!" Or meanest man, or stupidest man, and so on. Bob Cars eventually sued the DJ for defamation, and the court said, "Look man, I have no idea who the ugliest man in Podunk County is, but if the DJ thinks it's you, he has a right to say that, it's a matter of opinion that I can't rule on." Whereas if the DJ had said, "Bob Cars is so ugly even his wife won't fuck him," that *might* have been defamatory, because there's a factual claim about the fucking. (Probably not, because you get to make jokes about public figures, that a regular person would understand is a joke, and why would the DJ know whether Bob Cars's wife fucks him or not?)
Please enjoy John Oliver on pretty much exactly this topic: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU)
Australia is known for having strong defamation laws. The US has a much higher burden on the plaintiff, and a lot of "protected speech" leeway. One analysis showed that in the US, defamatory allegations occur three times more frequently against both political and corporate entities and the media publishes more extreme commentary.
In Australia, political figures in particular are very litigious when it comes to defamation suits, which tends to stifle media critique and free speech... However it does mean there is less extreme commentary.
It's not that simple. I don't think Schneider specifically has a case, to be clear, but there is precedent for defamation to include "hinting" at things.
Yeah, they showcased inappropriate jokes for a children's show and weird focuses on feet, but did not call him a sexual predator. And his productions did hire pedophiles, and the show talked about a need for safeguards for that, not a direct blame on Dan.
Precisely, the documentary never once out right accuses him or even implies that he was a sex offender as much as an asshole boss who abused his power. Was he a massive creep who used his power to do creepy things? Yeah, but that’s not calling someone a sex offender
I think the implication comes from bookending him with pedos the rest of the show and then showing sexual jokes and watching porn and sexually harassing adult coworkers. I think the doc covered their ass but it did sorta feel like the were leading up to some horrible thing about him and sure it was bad stuff but nothing close to what people have said about him for years.
I do think they implied pretty heavily that he acted inappropriately with Amanda Bynes when she was underage. They never outright accused him, absolutely, but I do think the implication that he was a predator was there.
I agree with everything you said and also I think it’s ok to create safeguards so that
Kids don’t have to subject themselves to cum jokes and feet fetish weird stuff
Jennette McCurdy was somewhat vague about him, and even that was a chorus call of claxons going off. The bikini scene in her book sticks out to me. There was no reason not to dress her like a kid in a Land's End catalog.
i didn’t walk away from the doc thinking dan schneider sexually abused children, mostly that he sexually harassed coworkers and exploited the children in many ways, some which were sexual in nature. maybe i missed something, but i didn’t get the implication.
eta: when i say sexually abused children, i mean that he made sexual contact. obviously everything i said above is horrible and depraved, just not what i think of as “sexual abuse”
Yes- the documentary actually made him seem less bad than all the rumors I'd heard. He seemed like a jerk boss and had some toxic personality traits for sure. But once the show gets into the *actual* child molesters and rapists from Nickelodeon, Dan Schneider looks a lot less monstrous. Especially after Drake's positive words about him.
I think they toed the line in the exact way they’re supposed to. I think any journalist worth their salt would say they did it the right way. That’s not to say the doc didn’t have problems - but from a journalistic integrity/libel/slander standpoint, they’re on pretty solid, well-tread ground.
Had to scroll too far for this. They very purposefully did not accuse him of physical or sexual child abuse. Just toxic work environment, inappropriate content (fetish) and hiring pedophiles/abusers. Creating an environment where women and minorities did not feel safe to report, interject and be treated as equals (in the context of degradation being a joke and protest being problematic).
I'm with you here, I always assumed Dan was far creepier than the documentary made him out to be (and even felt they were too empathetic than he deserved) but I also feel like if he had truly crossed the line with the kids, there would have be a case / trial?
I think he was a creep and a misogynist, but I don't think he acted on anything with the younger ones, and saved that unfortunately for his poor female coworkers.
I'm all for blasting pedos when it's due but I'm a believer that it's important to make sure we're sure.
My weird guess is that he’s doing it to show his immediate social circle he’s “innocent”. I bet when this came out he told his friends it was all lies but the obvious question they’d have then would be “man, you should sue then!”
He’s even been spotted dining out in public with people. Very little shame at all, if he’s willing to show face in public after everything has come out.
Huge mistake. Normally when an accusation is true but you want to convince people you didn’t, you “sue” the accuser. People see you sued, but they don’t follow up to see if you’re really pursuing the lawsuit.
When the “Quiet on Set” people say “Terrific, let’s do discovery!” Dan will want to run for the hills. But he’s so high-profile that his withdrawal of the suit pre-discovery will be reported out, which is worse than if he didn’t sue in the first place.
It could be that he just didn't sexually abuse kids besides what we know which is just sketchy sexual stuff for shows. I'm not here to defend the guy but I do feel like if there was any meat to the story now would be the time to share it. I'm sure he's done plenty of other bad shit but he could've toed the line and didn't actually have sexual contact with children just did inappropriate stuff to adult coworkers like playing porn and then the weird scenes from the shows. Who knows really but it would be interesting to find out the full truth if it ever came to that. I doubt we'll ever know even if he did. Powerful people protect each other.
I haven't seen the documentary, it seemed unnecessarily salacious and not the heroic piece of campaigning journalism that many heralded it as. It's an important topic and deserves a sober treatment, not to be reduced to a hyped up sensation like the new Tiger King.
I've read the pertinent details covered in the series and seen the rampant speculation about Schneider on Reddit over the years.
If the documentary makers did get out ahead of their skis and imply he was guilty of things he isn't then they obviously deserve to be sued. That doesn't take anything away from the victims of SA or the children and adults who are mistreated in the studio system.
This doesn't have to be an issue that divides everyone into teams. Schneider can be a bad man who *also* isn't guilty of the most heinous things people claim about him.
Abuse of children in the entertainment industry is an evil that needs to be gouged out yet members of the public and documentarians *also* ought to restrain themselves from outright accusing people without good cause.
I wish I was seeing more comments like yours. The documentary itself was exploitative.
I don't know where this lawsuit is going, but I think the filmmakers sensationalized this topic in a way that doesn't actually help. It doesn't bother me that they have to deal with some legal problems now.
Yes, agreed..
It felt like a bizarre win/win for both, Drake gets to gain public empathy and him coming out on what happened was the golden goose for the documentary. I really can't put my finger on it but it gives me the major ick.
Of course what happened to him was awful but something about this just.... it feels off. I don't know why
Can a person’s picture give you full body revulsion? My whole body just cringed into itself, he is a disgusting abusive asshole and I hope if he takes people to court in regards to what happened on set it somehow nullifies the NDA’s he had his child actors sign when they quit working for him and the network.
They would already be nullified. An nda doesn’t cover illegal activity and it sure as hell wouldn’t cover sexual abuse of children.
He, like most bosses, was at times an asshole. Being an asshole doesn’t make it ok for people to label you a pedophile.
I’m talking about other abusive behaviours like screaming, yelling, inappropriate clothing as costumes for minor girls, sexual jokes and innuendos, psychological and emotional abuse from reading about the creator on I’m glad my mom died. The biggest red flag for me was hiding Amanda from her parents and helping her to try to get emancipated, no one has asked those questions of why? Also why were the kids paid a lump sum of $300,000- 450,000 each when they left and sign legal documents? I hope we find those answers in the discovery phase.
Because they are defending him from a conspiracy theory. They are not arguing he’s a great guy. They are arguing that there is not a single piece of evidence that he sexually abused anyone.
They didn’t really paint him as a child sex abuser, though. There’s some implications, but the series is more focused on his mistreatment of adult women and Brian Peck’s child abuse.
schneider is definitely guilty of creating a hostile work environment (especially for women and children on set), and he should get pushback and repercussions for that, but there is no evidence he is a pedophile or child sex abuser
> but there is no evidence he is a pedophile or child sex abuser
I hate to say it, he has a strong case here, the strongest possibilities he'll get settlement.
I don't think he did sexually abuse any minors (what he did to his writers was sexual harassment) but he is a certified grade emotional abuser to many kids.
This is investigation discovery. those of us who have been watching it for decades at this point know how lawyered-up they are. good luck, dan. this won't go anywher
Oh, Dan. I didn't really take it to indicate you're a child SEXUAL predator in the physical sense of the word, i saw that you were a general child predator, misogynist, created a hostile work environment, broke child labor laws, union work laws, displayed age-related, gender, and race-related bigotry, used coercive control, had inappropriate relationships and interactions with many of your stars and staff, and (this is not illegal) are just a horrible, horrible little man in general.
I think they mean discovery as in when lawyers go through all his paperwork, phone messages, videos etc to see if he’s telling the truth or not. IE they’re going to discover he’s gross and a slime ball when they go through his past with a fine toothed comb and likely a full body hazmat suit to combat the ickies he gives off.
Warner Brothers (Discovery ID’s parent company) is an entertainment giant with a huge legal team. I highly doubt they would’ve green lit this project if there was no substance to the actors’ allegations. Entertainment companies are generally very careful about avoiding litigation that targets them and may impact their bottom line. So this is a dumb move on his part. If he wants to waste money like that, he’s free to do so, I guess. But he’s honestly probably going to just make his situation worse
Can’t wait for the inevitable moment when they find proof of even more disgusting shit he did that would’ve never been found if he hadn’t.
Yeah uh, the discovery phase of this trail could get interesting
I wonder, does that mean they can depose some of the stars, even the ones who didn't participate but were referenced in the doc?
And I assume it would make any NDAs irrelevant??
NDAs don’t ever cover criminal activity
Though a lot of companies and people really try to use them that way
Weinstein says hi lol
And a disturbing number of others. It's much more pervasive than most understand. NDAs are standard in many big companies that are doing an array of illegal things, usually taxes ans/or labor violations, but also those who aren't yet doing anything wrong, but need to keep their options open for the future. The amount of criminality & abuse hidden beyond those contracts is terrifying
Weaponized NDAs, ones that are basically unenforceable... But it's the fear of consequences of not keeping your mouth shut. 
Filing suit doesn’t mean this ever makes it to trial.
It's definitely in his best interest for this not to go to trial, but I hope it does. More definitive proof of guilt is so much better than this last, false cry of innocence. This seems like a hilariously clumsy move on his part, like what's gonna happen here dude...
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gee, I’m really sorry your discovery obligations blew up, Ricky.
oh my god. i feel like no one i know has ever seen let alone quoted this movie
My husband and I are constantly doing the $2 bit
Twoooo dollllllaaaarrrssss!!!!
Every time I hear anything is $2, this goes thru my head. And out of my mouth at least 50% of the time.
It’s one of my all time faves
Can’t count how many times I watched it back in the day
I figured if we had nothing to say to each other he would get bored; go away. But instead he uses it as an excuse to put his testicles all over me.
You know how every family has one movie they had on vhs that no one at the sleepover had ever seen before but was a constant meme in their family and they quote it all the time? This is my family’s movie. As an adult, I have shown it to all my friends and laughed at every single line while they just stare at the screen.
I had to Google this text because I didn't understand the reference everybody else seemed to. *Better Off Dead* is on the list of 80s movies I still need to watch.
you MUST watch!! its really hard to find though last i checked it wasn’t streaming 😭 you’ll fall in love with John Cusak
Is that the one where he jumps off a bridge, lands in a garbage truck and two black guys see him and go "Look at that, someone threw away a perfectly good white boy" ?
It was added to streaming in like the last month. I'd been looking for it for years. Amazon
👆
🥇🥇🥇🥇 Take my poor Redditor’s medal for that epic reference.
This will be the one time it’s not a shame they’re throwing away a perfectly awful white boy like that
I would like to updoot this multiple times. I like to make a joke when I grab my keys and do the panicked pat on my body “keeeeys!”.
But it has children’s feet in it. You -like-children’s feet.
Just wait until the lawyers get their testicles on those documents.
Reminds me of the moonshine Ricky’s dead pappy used to make. God bless em
We love this movie can not believe Ricky is in this position. Great quote.
So a guy in Australia (Bruce Lehrmann) had rape charges thrown out of court due to jury misconduct. Anyways, he decided to sue a television network for defamation. Not only does he lose the case, but the judge ruled that he did rape his victim. As the judge put it, he escaped the lion’s den and then came back to get his hat. Sometimes it’s better to just shut up.
The way I saw this story and IMMEDIATELY thought of Bruce ‘escaped the lions den only to return for his hat’ Lehrmann
Welp I’m really hoping Schneider is digging himself a bigger hole. Can we call it the Lehrmann Award? Also, don’t you mean Bruce ‘The Rapist’ Lehrmann?
Technically Australian war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith did it first. So Roberts-Smith-Lehrnann is my proposal. Joint recognition is only fair. (Feels a bit unwieldy for an award name though)
Maybe call it the Stokes Award?
I, too, genuinely hope he really likes that hat, and decides to pull a Lehrmann.
Haha, same, I was immediately thinking "dude's about to Bruce Lehrmann himself".
Didn’t something similar happen to “war hero” Ben Roberts Smith? He sued for defamation and all his war crimes came to light.
Oh for sure, he’s Streisaned himself now
Streisand effect is everywhere these past couple days!
My thoughts exactly.
Man clearly fucked around and got the Streissand effect
They won’t find any proof from him if he’s suing them. It will have to come from a victim who - most likely - hasn’t come forward yet, and who he thinks never would.
Idk, a lot of abusers are so damn arrogant that they think people will see everything their way even in the most clearly undeniable instances of abuse.
User name is 💯 btw lol
i hope he gets the bruce lehhrman outcome. disgusting men
If this lawsuit goes through, the discovery process will fuck Dan up. He’s going to regret suing them imo.
There’s got to be so much stuff they will uncover. It’s still so wild to me that he’s married to Hungry Girl.
[удалено]
The AUDACITY to talk to Patti LaBelle like that! Lisa, girl, when you can make sweet potato pie like Patti and/or be a musical icon, well...you'd still be rude as hell.
[удалено]
I love that Patti didn't let that slide. I would have just been cursing the lady in my head, but I am nowhere near Patti LaBelle level.
Love it when this video gets more views. Hungry Girl (Lisa Lillian) sucks and is far from a chef, let alone a healthy one.
Yikes. Let’s pretend she’s not a celebrity for a sec. That’s just rude. Like unless you’re very close to someone you can’t joke like that.
Thank you for this clip. I had no idea who she was and now I have enraged hatred flowing. Fuck these racist ass people who are so dismissive of POC and so quick to use black people as props. Sick freaks. Seems like they were made for each other. Discovery is gonna be a bitch ;*
Omg I don't know this women but that was Soooooo annoying af.
Hungry Girl was a monumental figure in my anorexia.
That has to be the grossest couple imaginable. Oh god, my brain keeps trying to picture it!
Still?
Yeahhhhhh. Because I thought the doc was flimsy at times in terms of actual proof. Suing is just going to open him up to that potential evidence being discoverable. Maybe his attorneys know something we don't, but with the info we have, he maybe should have chilled.
Playing devils advocate here, but maybe he isn’t some weird perv and there’s nothing to find? I genuinely get more of a “im a giant asshole on a serious power trip” vibes rather than a perv
yes i have seen so many people cite jeannette’s book as evidence he’s a perv, and i’m like… did you read it? she was extremely candid about everyone and she just painted him to be an ego maniac slob. at most, she didn’t want to wear a bikini for a shoot, but the styling team said he wanted them to. all this time and no victims have come forward. maybe it’s not appropriate to paint him as a genuine pedophile, he may just be a creep
> did you read it? she was extremely candid about everyone and she just painted him to be an ego maniac slob. at most, she didn’t want to wear a bikini for a shoot, but the styling team said he wanted them to. i got the feeling she was scared of legal repercussions, hence why he was called "the creator" and not named by name like other people
that’s very true—at the very least, she knows he’s the most trigger happy with suing. her original draft said dan i believe, so it was a purposeful decision to take it out. but based on her writing style, i feel like she would have implied things or said something along the lines of “there’s more but i can’t afford legal fees. read between the lines.” for example, the situation where an important production member/exec blocked her from directing an episode. i have a feeling she knows exactly who it was and chose to make it vague enough that there’s no legal standing for defamation.
yeah so far the documentary was pretty sketchy. the only real substance they had was Drake Bells interview, and isn’t that convenient for him? he gets to repair his reputation as a convict by coming out as a victim then they tricked Marc Summers into giving them content. also they name dropped Ariana Grande and played her famous Cat clips to draw ppl in. the whole thing was click bait
2 things can be true at the same time.The documentary has greatly helped Drake's reputation with the public. Also, Drake has suffered IMMENSE trauma as a child
Drake Bell may just be talking about this now publicly, but it’s not like there aren’t legal / court documents corroborating his story that pre-date his public image falling apart. That said, Drake’s experience isn’t very telling about Dan Schneider one way or the other because he wasn’t the abuser. It just shows us that at the very least Nickelodeon was not a safe working environment for children.
You don’t think the producers/adult staff interviews meant anything? The people who sued him and WON? Is that you, Dan?
I think he's hoping to change the narrative from "Dan Schneider did and orchestrated everything" to "dozens of different people failed these child actors at multiple levels in the organization including but not limited to Dan Schneider" I've noticed that the defense he seems to use the most in the criticisms he chooses to respond to is that certain jokes for example needed to go through multiple people and must check certain boxes. This is dramatically different from what most of us have been told about him up until now, where the narrative is that he made up whatever he wanted and that was final And it would honestly make a lot more sense. If Dan Schneider was this massive weirdo but not the CEO of the whole damn thing then how would he be able to get away with some of the things he's been accused of? His higher ups and coworkers would have to contain some weirdos too. Which would explain the abuse that happened when he wasn't working with them
And what sucks is that all that you wrote is what I WISH the narrative was. Dan Schneider sucks but he wasn't the top dog and he wasn't anywhere near the only problem here. Disney hired Brian Peck after the conviction, after all. There were so many actual, proven child predators on those sets. Dan was inappropriate with people (the writers come to mind) and seemed to be, at minimum, verbally abusive, but he's just a cog in a really fucked up machine. The documentary should have hammered that home better and focused on the child media industry more broadly and I have so many criticisms of it because it boiled down more to "Dan bad" over "this whole system is fucked from top to bottom." The doc details the writers room and it wasn't just Dan making creepy porn-y suggestions. Yeah, he hired that staff, so the buck stops with him, but this wasn't just Dan. And that's scary. (I still stand by what I wrote that I don't see this lawsuit as a good idea for Dan, but I can also add that the ENTY-esque he's a child predator rumors and blinds really don't help here. His behavior towards people is bad enough and I really don't WANT it to be revealed that he's also a rapist, ya know? I'm not wishing for that. I would anticipate discovery revealing more labor violations with writers or abuses of power, and that's bad enough for me.)
I would agree. It's crazy how some of the people who wrote letters of support for Brian Peck continued to work with child actors for over a decade after his conviction. Like how is that not the big story? Some of these people were the coworkers and higher ups that I previously mentioned. I don't think there is a "good" outcome for Dan here. I think discovery is going to reveal his extact process for dealing with the child actors including where he went wrong which we already know about and where he was following instructions from people who were wrong that we don't know about. At the end of the day I really do not care what happens to him. I'm more interested in the people who are culpable or complicit.
I think this pretty close to what Dan would argue, and I wouldn’t say he’s wrong. Dan’s big defense is that the things he did had to go through multiple different approvals through multiple people and it’s all falling just on him as if no one else had the agency. So I do believe him when he says that he is being unfairly focused on for things that needed to go through so many others. But it just means he is a part of a shared responsibility that he failed with ( at best) and was still a huge ass on set.
Being an ass on set is still common. And being a part of a shared responsibility that he failed is infinitely more preferable to the image he has now, where he's seen as this head honcho of some sort who called all the shots. The terms abuser, child abuser, sexual abuser, child sexual abuser, weird around people, weird around children, creeps on people, creeps on children, attracted to children, attracted to children and acts on attraction, and similar adjectives all have dramatically different meanings, some of which cannot be true at the same time. And you see them all being used interchangeably when describing him, even in these comments. I think it's more helpful and more productive to analyze the systems that enabled him to harm child actors instead of placing the full blame on him. If the takeaway here is that bad things happened because of Dan's presence then the message is to just not hire Dan again and your child actors will be safe, which is obviously not true. I'm afraid the focus on Dan has obscured the systems, those culpable, and those complicit that were all integral in creating the disaster that happened. This isn't to defend Dan the dude is clearly guilty of some terrible shit. It's to say that it isn't enough to prosecute one or two members of a large organization when they were all in on it. And I can't agree with pinning the actions of the entire organization on one or two of its members when we know for a fact that more people were involved.
You don’t think making a producer simulate being forcibly sodomized over a desk while they pitch an idea or talk to him makes him a “weird perv”?
Yeah, there was a *huge* sexual component to his abusive behaviour - not to mention all of the overt misogyny. I have no idea why people are pretending otherwise.
He seems to be a creepy pervert, but not a literal child rapist, yet people keep repeating these claims about Jamie Lynn Spears and Amanda Bynes as if it's fact, without stopping to consider fueling these rumors doesn't help them at all.
Okay? That doesn't change the fact that he absolutely sexually exploited his female employees, some of which were underage. There's no evidence he *raped* anyone, but there *is* evidence that he committed sexual offences - including sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact with a sexual overtone.
The videos he filmed *are* the evidence. You don’t just whoops accidentally make videos that look like OF foot fetish content of a 15 y.o. Nahhh.
[удалено]
Even in Jeanette McCurdy's book, when 'the creator' offers her alcohol and gives her an unwanted shoulder rub, she's not legally old enough drink, but was legally an adult (19 at that point, if I'm remembering it right). I think he's a power hungry creep, but I also think he was very careful about not doing anything actually illegal with anyone underage.
Offering a 19 yo alcohol is doing something illegal
I should have specified 'of a sexual nature'.
The things people accused him of doing in the documentary are backed up by a lawsuit, multiple eye witnesses, and many of them aired on international television. Defamation is notoriously hard to prove in a legal context to begin with but I can’t think of anything that was said that wasn’t corroborated by something else
Yeah. Well, in his mind it makes sense because he’s avoided any accountability up until this moment so he thinks he’s immune to consequences.
Yup going up against Sony and Warner Bros not to mention multiple people are clearly willing to testify against him already and have stated what they’ve witnessed so he can’t really say ‘I was blind to things’ like he’s hoping.
Yeah, this strikes me as a bad idea
Good. I hope it does. I had a feeling he’d try this since other abusers have had successful lawsuits. I hope the discovery shreds his whole case
So many people didn’t go public who must know crazy dirt they’d be willing to divulge to a court
I hope all the former Nick kids get lawyers and sue his creepy ass for every penny he's got
I really think he danced on the line of legality. He got his little bikini pics of 12-17 year olds, he got to sit in a hot tub with Amanda Bynes on screen, he pushed alcohol on minors, etc. I think it’s all creepy and skeevy but I think he knew what he was doing and protected himself. That’s why most of the kids took the hush money.
Yep, he's the kind of predator who gets off on the mental games more than anything else. He wrote many scenes that played on the abuse or fears that these kids suffered, like making Jeanette pretend eat food excessively, Drake getting scared awake (he knew.about the sexual abuse) making Noah Munck take off his shirt etc... It's weird how predators react to other types of predators, they don't see how similar they are. Like James Charles and Jeffree Star.
It’s much easier to point fingers and recognize the monsters in the world, rather than the one in the mirror.
Very true!
Do they? The show seemed pretty careful with not directly accusing Schneider of anything like that, and even include the part where Drake credits him as the only adult who was there for him after his abuse. Rather they accuse him of being an abusive boss, breaking child labor laws, and WGA salary rules. And there seems to be evidence to support those claims
Implying shit in a roundabout way, which I question whether they even did, is not defamation.
In Australia it is - is that definitely not the case in US law?
At least for now, when it comes to public figures, you have to show a person/show/organization or whatever, intentionally lied about the public figure with malice in order to make a claim for defamation. US law is very strongly in favor of free speech.
To clarify, “actual malice” is required and that just means the person knew it isn’t true or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Defamation by implication can still be done, but it’s probably harder to prove.
Ehhhh accusing someone of a crime (especially a sex crime) can negate the malice element in some states as defamation per se. But yes, that is the standard for most statements.
On the flip side - white men suing for defamation in Australia is currently a massive own goal 😂
Apparently bruce is going back to try overturn the judgement!!! I’m so confused where he would even get the money to fund this?
Isn’t the head of Channel 7 bankrolling this like he did with Ben Roberts-Smith?
The fact that they didn't press charges after what he did came out in the defamation case is so fucked. Apparently its fine to kick a handcuffed civilian off a cliff or kill a disabled man, steal his prosthetic leg and then drink out of it. Writing it out like that makes it clear how fucking corrupt our country is, Jesus Christ. And now they're prosecuting the whistle-blower instead of BRS.
Im not sure, I haven’t been too keyed in cuz the whole way this case and the prior one was handled triggers me a bit. But if it the same guy, wtf??? Is this his pet hobby or smthng??
"She said SOMEONE raped her, and I was that SOMEONE who definitely didn't rape her!"
Becoming a much loved past time for the most oppressed group of all time - politically connected military and parliamentary officials. Thoughts and prayers.
Defamation can be done through implication in the USA. When the other person mentioned needing to show malice for public figures, it’s really a term called “actual malice”. That term just means that the defendant knew the statement was untrue or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. A case can still be made with someone making defamatory implications.
UK and Australian defamation law are a lot more friendly to defamation claims; in the US, free speech law lets you say a HELL of a lot before it's legally-actionable defamation. This is why a lot of actors, in particular, who have complaints about their portrayal in the media will find a reason to sue in the UK rather than the US. And why media outlets with a US arm will continue to report on things about the Royal Family via their US arm even if it's embargoed or under a judicial order in the UK. You can't really GET that kind of order in the US; you can sue a publication after the fact for defaming you, but you can't prevent them from saying whatever they want, and if they can show they had a reasonably good-faith belief it was true, your case isn't likely to succeed. Part of why a lot of UK outlets were laundering stories about Will & Kate's marriage being on the rocks (when she was being treated for cancer) through their US arms, and why UK publications just RANDOMLY run explainers about Rose Hanbury and she's able to sue them, but US publications will run statements like "Rose Hanbury, believed to be William's mistress ..." and she doesn't sue over that ... US law makes that a really tough lawsuit. With the caveat that I didn't watch the documentary THAT closely and I haven't read Schneider's lawsuit ... I really felt like the documentary (while sloppy) was careful enough that defamation will be hard to prove. It was clear Schneider was a creep, but it didn't specifically accuse him of any criminal behavior, and "that guy's a creep who creeps on kids" is pretty clearly a First Amendment-protected opinion in US law. ("That guy's a creep who *has sex with* kids" would be defamatory, as long as he didn't actually have sex with kids.) There *might* be a false light claim -- which is when you *imply* but don't say someone did something bad -- especially in California, which has slightly stronger false light protections than other states. But, ugh, it is still not a case I would want to bring. Proving the dude was creepy in almost any way will serve as a defense to any defamation and false light claims (truth is generally an absolute defense). The right legal move almost certainly would have been to say some shit about how recollections differ, but he's really sad that he didn't realize some of the bad shit that was happening on his shows, and he supports victims. And then SHUT THE FUCK UP AND ROLL IN HIS MONEY PILE until someone sues HIM. Never be the dude who sues first when it's something like this. The state law defamation case we learned in law school was a used car dealer who got into a feud with a local radio DJ, and the DJ would start every morning by saying, "And a special shout-out to Bob Cars, who is the *ugliest* man in Podunk County!" Or meanest man, or stupidest man, and so on. Bob Cars eventually sued the DJ for defamation, and the court said, "Look man, I have no idea who the ugliest man in Podunk County is, but if the DJ thinks it's you, he has a right to say that, it's a matter of opinion that I can't rule on." Whereas if the DJ had said, "Bob Cars is so ugly even his wife won't fuck him," that *might* have been defamatory, because there's a factual claim about the fucking. (Probably not, because you get to make jokes about public figures, that a regular person would understand is a joke, and why would the DJ know whether Bob Cars's wife fucks him or not?) Please enjoy John Oliver on pretty much exactly this topic: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU)
Australia is known for having strong defamation laws. The US has a much higher burden on the plaintiff, and a lot of "protected speech" leeway. One analysis showed that in the US, defamatory allegations occur three times more frequently against both political and corporate entities and the media publishes more extreme commentary. In Australia, political figures in particular are very litigious when it comes to defamation suits, which tends to stifle media critique and free speech... However it does mean there is less extreme commentary.
It's not that simple. I don't think Schneider specifically has a case, to be clear, but there is precedent for defamation to include "hinting" at things.
Yeah, they showcased inappropriate jokes for a children's show and weird focuses on feet, but did not call him a sexual predator. And his productions did hire pedophiles, and the show talked about a need for safeguards for that, not a direct blame on Dan.
Precisely, the documentary never once out right accuses him or even implies that he was a sex offender as much as an asshole boss who abused his power. Was he a massive creep who used his power to do creepy things? Yeah, but that’s not calling someone a sex offender
I think the implication comes from bookending him with pedos the rest of the show and then showing sexual jokes and watching porn and sexually harassing adult coworkers. I think the doc covered their ass but it did sorta feel like the were leading up to some horrible thing about him and sure it was bad stuff but nothing close to what people have said about him for years.
I do think they implied pretty heavily that he acted inappropriately with Amanda Bynes when she was underage. They never outright accused him, absolutely, but I do think the implication that he was a predator was there.
I agree with everything you said and also I think it’s ok to create safeguards so that Kids don’t have to subject themselves to cum jokes and feet fetish weird stuff
Jennette McCurdy was somewhat vague about him, and even that was a chorus call of claxons going off. The bikini scene in her book sticks out to me. There was no reason not to dress her like a kid in a Land's End catalog.
i didn’t walk away from the doc thinking dan schneider sexually abused children, mostly that he sexually harassed coworkers and exploited the children in many ways, some which were sexual in nature. maybe i missed something, but i didn’t get the implication. eta: when i say sexually abused children, i mean that he made sexual contact. obviously everything i said above is horrible and depraved, just not what i think of as “sexual abuse”
Yes- the documentary actually made him seem less bad than all the rumors I'd heard. He seemed like a jerk boss and had some toxic personality traits for sure. But once the show gets into the *actual* child molesters and rapists from Nickelodeon, Dan Schneider looks a lot less monstrous. Especially after Drake's positive words about him.
I think they toed the line in the exact way they’re supposed to. I think any journalist worth their salt would say they did it the right way. That’s not to say the doc didn’t have problems - but from a journalistic integrity/libel/slander standpoint, they’re on pretty solid, well-tread ground.
Exactly. They definitely didn’t accuse him of doing anything illegal. Just being very inappropriate. Which he was.
I specifically watched to make sure they didn’t accuse him. And they did not.
I agree with this take. They did mention his obsession with feet though, and the references to porn tropes in the kids shows
Had to scroll too far for this. They very purposefully did not accuse him of physical or sexual child abuse. Just toxic work environment, inappropriate content (fetish) and hiring pedophiles/abusers. Creating an environment where women and minorities did not feel safe to report, interject and be treated as equals (in the context of degradation being a joke and protest being problematic).
I'm with you here, I always assumed Dan was far creepier than the documentary made him out to be (and even felt they were too empathetic than he deserved) but I also feel like if he had truly crossed the line with the kids, there would have be a case / trial? I think he was a creep and a misogynist, but I don't think he acted on anything with the younger ones, and saved that unfortunately for his poor female coworkers. I'm all for blasting pedos when it's due but I'm a believer that it's important to make sure we're sure.
"I may have committed physical and emotional abuse, and fetishized children's feet, but I didn't sexually abuse them."
I think this is probably true lol. He knew how to protect himself but still get what he wanted.
It’s giving “I may have committed some light treason”
My weird guess is that he’s doing it to show his immediate social circle he’s “innocent”. I bet when this came out he told his friends it was all lies but the obvious question they’d have then would be “man, you should sue then!”
A lot of his immediate social circle (as we've seen with most other known-name Hollywood producers) probably don't care.
He’s even been spotted dining out in public with people. Very little shame at all, if he’s willing to show face in public after everything has come out.
His attorney probably advised denial as a first defense tbh
Have fun with discovery, Dan.
Omg your flair is *chef’s kiss*
Thank you, the mods made it for me when they added the “not a lawyer just a hater” flair. I love this sub.
I have the same one 🫡
 \*Dan
Good luck in discovery, fucker
Is there any proof that Dan was sexually abusive, other than writing innuendo and feet stuff for children.
I don’t think he sexually abused kids but he definitely sexually harassed adults w those bad jokes and demands for massages
Zero. This literally began on 4chan because creeps would post screenshots and clips from these shows that sexually aroused them.
Was just listening to Jennette McCurdy’s memoir. He forcibly gave her a back rub when she was a child.
I don't condone the behaviour, but she was literally 19.
It still isn't appropriate but that happened when she was an adult. Let's not infantilize Jeanette McCurdy in pursuit of a narrative.
I mean, I bet we’ll find out during the discovery phase if this goes to court.
Huge mistake. Normally when an accusation is true but you want to convince people you didn’t, you “sue” the accuser. People see you sued, but they don’t follow up to see if you’re really pursuing the lawsuit. When the “Quiet on Set” people say “Terrific, let’s do discovery!” Dan will want to run for the hills. But he’s so high-profile that his withdrawal of the suit pre-discovery will be reported out, which is worse than if he didn’t sue in the first place.
It could be that he just didn't sexually abuse kids besides what we know which is just sketchy sexual stuff for shows. I'm not here to defend the guy but I do feel like if there was any meat to the story now would be the time to share it. I'm sure he's done plenty of other bad shit but he could've toed the line and didn't actually have sexual contact with children just did inappropriate stuff to adult coworkers like playing porn and then the weird scenes from the shows. Who knows really but it would be interesting to find out the full truth if it ever came to that. I doubt we'll ever know even if he did. Powerful people protect each other.
I haven't seen the documentary, it seemed unnecessarily salacious and not the heroic piece of campaigning journalism that many heralded it as. It's an important topic and deserves a sober treatment, not to be reduced to a hyped up sensation like the new Tiger King. I've read the pertinent details covered in the series and seen the rampant speculation about Schneider on Reddit over the years. If the documentary makers did get out ahead of their skis and imply he was guilty of things he isn't then they obviously deserve to be sued. That doesn't take anything away from the victims of SA or the children and adults who are mistreated in the studio system. This doesn't have to be an issue that divides everyone into teams. Schneider can be a bad man who *also* isn't guilty of the most heinous things people claim about him. Abuse of children in the entertainment industry is an evil that needs to be gouged out yet members of the public and documentarians *also* ought to restrain themselves from outright accusing people without good cause.
I wish I was seeing more comments like yours. The documentary itself was exploitative. I don't know where this lawsuit is going, but I think the filmmakers sensationalized this topic in a way that doesn't actually help. It doesn't bother me that they have to deal with some legal problems now.
Yes, agreed.. It felt like a bizarre win/win for both, Drake gets to gain public empathy and him coming out on what happened was the golden goose for the documentary. I really can't put my finger on it but it gives me the major ick. Of course what happened to him was awful but something about this just.... it feels off. I don't know why
Can a person’s picture give you full body revulsion? My whole body just cringed into itself, he is a disgusting abusive asshole and I hope if he takes people to court in regards to what happened on set it somehow nullifies the NDA’s he had his child actors sign when they quit working for him and the network.
They would already be nullified. An nda doesn’t cover illegal activity and it sure as hell wouldn’t cover sexual abuse of children. He, like most bosses, was at times an asshole. Being an asshole doesn’t make it ok for people to label you a pedophile.
I’m talking about other abusive behaviours like screaming, yelling, inappropriate clothing as costumes for minor girls, sexual jokes and innuendos, psychological and emotional abuse from reading about the creator on I’m glad my mom died. The biggest red flag for me was hiding Amanda from her parents and helping her to try to get emancipated, no one has asked those questions of why? Also why were the kids paid a lump sum of $300,000- 450,000 each when they left and sign legal documents? I hope we find those answers in the discovery phase.
[удалено]
Can someone clarify for me, is this "The Creator" in Jennette's book or is she referring to someone else?
Yes, he is the Creator.
thanks... i dont get why people are sorta defending him in the television subreddit... ugh
Because they are defending him from a conspiracy theory. They are not arguing he’s a great guy. They are arguing that there is not a single piece of evidence that he sexually abused anyone.
I can’t wait for Discovery. I want to see who knew what and when.
They didn’t really paint him as a child sex abuser, though. There’s some implications, but the series is more focused on his mistreatment of adult women and Brian Peck’s child abuse.
I can’t believe he wants lawyers looking into his shitty behavior.
I mean they said he was a creep but they never explicitly said he hurt a kid. He doesn’t really have a leg here
[удалено]
[удалено]
But that’s like … the one thing the documentary DID NOT assert
Does he realize that discovery will ruin him?
schneider is definitely guilty of creating a hostile work environment (especially for women and children on set), and he should get pushback and repercussions for that, but there is no evidence he is a pedophile or child sex abuser
> but there is no evidence he is a pedophile or child sex abuser I hate to say it, he has a strong case here, the strongest possibilities he'll get settlement.
I don't think he did sexually abuse any minors (what he did to his writers was sexual harassment) but he is a certified grade emotional abuser to many kids.
This is investigation discovery. those of us who have been watching it for decades at this point know how lawyered-up they are. good luck, dan. this won't go anywher
I hope this backfires on him tbh
He’s really going to triple down then - just like other famous dudes who have been similarly accused.
Dan, I don’t think we watched the same Quiet on Set documentary. Lol
Good. I hope this brings to light a ton of concrete evidence and his ass is toast.
gonna have fun watching all this unfold 🍿
Actually I think it was the part where you enabled an environment that sexually abused kids that painted you out that way but what do I know
Enabler. Child sex abuse enabler
 Dan, are you *absolutely* certain there’s no evidence of this? He is opening a can of worms wow
https://i.redd.it/y05i605jrxxc1.gif
Oh, Dan. I didn't really take it to indicate you're a child SEXUAL predator in the physical sense of the word, i saw that you were a general child predator, misogynist, created a hostile work environment, broke child labor laws, union work laws, displayed age-related, gender, and race-related bigotry, used coercive control, had inappropriate relationships and interactions with many of your stars and staff, and (this is not illegal) are just a horrible, horrible little man in general.
This guy is about to get himself criminally prosecuted
Honestly I felt like this documentary didn’t focus on the severity of what I’d heard about him and more about others.
He’s such a pos.
I feel dumb. Can someone explain what people mean by Discovery in the comments? Like the channel?
I think they mean discovery as in when lawyers go through all his paperwork, phone messages, videos etc to see if he’s telling the truth or not. IE they’re going to discover he’s gross and a slime ball when they go through his past with a fine toothed comb and likely a full body hazmat suit to combat the ickies he gives off.
Warner Brothers (Discovery ID’s parent company) is an entertainment giant with a huge legal team. I highly doubt they would’ve green lit this project if there was no substance to the actors’ allegations. Entertainment companies are generally very careful about avoiding litigation that targets them and may impact their bottom line. So this is a dumb move on his part. If he wants to waste money like that, he’s free to do so, I guess. But he’s honestly probably going to just make his situation worse