I'm glad this is being followed by Attorney Orlins and covered by The Contrarian. Why? It raises the issues of: whether the judicial system has different rules for celebrities, whether prosecution of violence against women has suffered setbacks because of the T culture, whether the judicial system from police to prosecutors to courts have good procedures and rules in place for handling sexual violence prosecutions. Don't have to be a celebrity gawker to want to learn more about the state of protection of women against violence.
I disagree. Abuse of celebrity power and sex trafficking are major issues. Trials can be very interesting. I for one am glad to have someone explain it to me in a brief fashion.
I agree that the abuse of celebrity power is a major issue. But the diddy story is everywhere and nothing is advanced by the click-bait story here on The Contrarian. If I wanted more details on the perversion of the purveyors of junk culture, I would look elsewhere, perhaps at the grocery store checkout.
I guess I'd agree that it doesn't quite fit on The Contrarian but I avoid most media these days so am happy to get the rundown here. I don't agree that it is junk culture. I see it as an application of the rule of law to the issue of trafficking, which is experienced by many women.
Interesting to me that all the commenters here that find this useless, unworthy of reporting, "who cares?" etc. . . . are all MEN. Women are not finding this unimportant, "junk culture," or a waste of time to pay attention to the justice system taking note of sexual violence and abuse. I also note that a lackadaisical and dismissive attitude about rapists and sexual abusers was a factor that brought us a rapist and multi-felon as president.
Thank you for a straightforward discussion of the basis for this trial, Ms. Orlins. I am disappointed that some men are bored and dismissive of crimes against women (and others) by powerful, rich men.
Since I am hard of hearing, I find close-captioning very helpful, BUT .... one word at a time is a huge distraction and it insults viewers as if they have the attention span of a gnat.
I'm glad this is being followed by Attorney Orlins and covered by The Contrarian. Why? It raises the issues of: whether the judicial system has different rules for celebrities, whether prosecution of violence against women has suffered setbacks because of the T culture, whether the judicial system from police to prosecutors to courts have good procedures and rules in place for handling sexual violence prosecutions. Don't have to be a celebrity gawker to want to learn more about the state of protection of women against violence.
Also, no one gives a rat's ass about the diddy trial. Spend your time on something serious.
I disagree. Abuse of celebrity power and sex trafficking are major issues. Trials can be very interesting. I for one am glad to have someone explain it to me in a brief fashion.
I agree that the abuse of celebrity power is a major issue. But the diddy story is everywhere and nothing is advanced by the click-bait story here on The Contrarian. If I wanted more details on the perversion of the purveyors of junk culture, I would look elsewhere, perhaps at the grocery store checkout.
I guess I'd agree that it doesn't quite fit on The Contrarian but I avoid most media these days so am happy to get the rundown here. I don't agree that it is junk culture. I see it as an application of the rule of law to the issue of trafficking, which is experienced by many women.
Interesting to me that all the commenters here that find this useless, unworthy of reporting, "who cares?" etc. . . . are all MEN. Women are not finding this unimportant, "junk culture," or a waste of time to pay attention to the justice system taking note of sexual violence and abuse. I also note that a lackadaisical and dismissive attitude about rapists and sexual abusers was a factor that brought us a rapist and multi-felon as president.
Thank you for a straightforward discussion of the basis for this trial, Ms. Orlins. I am disappointed that some men are bored and dismissive of crimes against women (and others) by powerful, rich men.
Since I am hard of hearing, I find close-captioning very helpful, BUT .... one word at a time is a huge distraction and it insults viewers as if they have the attention span of a gnat.
Why should we care about this? There is SO much that matters SO much more. Let the jury do its job.