Back in February, Kesha’s lawsuit/injunction against Dr. Luke was thrown out. The lawsuit was about Kesha’s right to break her contract with her alleged abuser, and how she wanted to record music away from Dr. Luke entirely. The judge threw out the case because the judge believed in upholding the contract, for whatever reason. It seemed like the judge was so Pollyanna to believe that everything operates in the music industry with perfect, profit-driven capitalism and no one ever has a personal or non-financial motive for any of their actions, but it may have been a legal judgment. Kesha and her lawyers filed an immediate appeal and her lawyers seemed to overreach a bit by comparing Kesha’s situation to “slavery.” Well, the same judge has just thrown out Kesha’s appeal, meaning Kesha is still contractually tied to Dr. Luke.
Kesha was delivered a huge blow Wednesday by a New York judge who dismissed nearly all of the singer’s counterclaims in her ongoing lawsuit against Dr. Luke. The star previously accused the producer of drugging, raping and abusing her during her career. The hitmaker, in turn, has vehemently denied the allegations and countersued for breach of contract and defamation. The singer has been adamant about being released from her contracts with Luke because, she wrote in February, “This is about being free from my abuser.”
On Wednesday, New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich cited lack of jurisdiction and failure to procure facts proving the allegations when tossing out the majority of Kesha’s counter claims. The pop star’s claims invoking human rights laws were dismissed – alleging the plaintiffs “discriminated against [her] based on her gender” – were dismissed because “Kesha failed to plead that any of the alleged discrimination occurred in New York State or City … the court has no jurisdiction over” the claims, the judge wrote.
As for the civil rights, or “hate crime,” laws, the singer had to prove Dr. Luke “harbored animus towards women or was motivated by gender animus when he allegedly behaved violently toward Kesha,” the judge stated in court documents obtained by PEOPLE. “Every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime.”
According to Justice Kornreich, the only allegations Kesha made that meets the elements of “physical violence or property damage” were claims that Luke assaulted her on an airplane and raped her in his hotel room. But “the claim is time-barred,” writes Kornreich.
The singer’s claim of “intentional infliction of emotional distress” was also dismissed because the judge believes her allegations “do not meet the strict pleading standard. Her claims of insults about her value as an artist, her looks, and her weight are insufficient to constitute extreme, outrageous conduct intolerable in civilized society,” Kornreich wrote, adding the instances that would constitute as intentional were “time-barred.”
Aside from throwing out her claims, the judge also denied Kesha’s request to make amendments. “Kesha’s request for leave to amend the CCs is denied because there is nothing in the record from which the court can determine whether the amendment would be meritorious,” state the papers.
Ever since I read about this ruling last night, I’ve been thinking about the judge’s words: “Every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime.” True or false? Is every rapist a misogynist? Is every rape a hate crime? It’s not just a linguistic argument, it’s a legal argument and one that I would like to see more of. I have long believed that we should consider mass shooters to be “terrorists” regardless of race. Can we not say serial abusers of women are hate-crime assailants or misogynistic terrorists too?
Anyway, Kesha’s still got legal options. The part of her case about her recording contract is still going forward, and Kesha is putting together a larger legal team to pursue more actions in California.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
Sadly the judge is right. Under the legal definition: rape is not a hate crime. But it totally should be. Rape isn’t about sex. It’s about power and control.
I don’t understand Dr. Luke’s motive here. If he believes Kesha lied, why would he want to continue to work with her? He clearly wants her under his contro. Which is a typical pattern for abusers.
It makes me sad this judge is a woman.
+1
It is a hate crime (power/ control/ anger) but I don’t think it is a gendered hate crime, do you?
Rape is not a gendered hate crime at all. Gender doesn’t have to have anything to do with it. It is power and control and anger and all sorts of things, but women aren’t the only ones who get raped.
@Sarah-You can’t say that gender doesn’t have anything to do with rape. Gender isn’t automatically a motivating factor for rape but it absolutely can be. Otherwise, every rapist would be raping men, women, animals, children, whatever–and we know that serial rapists often demonstrate a proclivity for a specific “type” of victim.
Re: men getting raped. I recently watched a true crime show about a rapist who was sent to prison for raping a woman. In prison he was mercilessly raped by men and did plenty of raping himself. When he got out of prison, he raped men only. Never raped another woman again.
He was so angry at men who had raped him that he was out to punish every man he could get his hands on. Yes it was about power and control and YES, it was also about gender. I’m not sure that would make it a hate crime, but it does demonstrate that rape can be gender-motivated.
Same as the serial killer who had mommy issues because mommy was a prostitute who brought strange men into the house and neglected her son. Son then grows up to be a misogynist who rapes women. We’ve seen that kind of scenario time and time again.
Is rape ever about lust though? Take what Shia Lebouf said about being sexually assaulted by a woman when he was posing for the arts. Did that woman rape him because she wanted power and control over him, she hated him or did she just lust after him and this was her chance to bring her sick fantasy to life.
I remember years ago watching some interview about a rapist and he said he didn’t hate his victim, he was just so turned on by her that he just wanted to sleep with her. The response by the interviewer was that the rapist took her power away. His response was that this wasn’t his intentions he just wanted to love her and he even apologized for it. That sounded like some crazy obsession to me.
“Same as the serial killer who had mommy issues because mommy was a prostitute who brought strange men into the house and neglected her son. Son then grows up to be a misogynist who rapes women. We’ve seen that kind of scenario time and time again.”
Yep that happens a lot. They touch on those types of scenarios on one of my favorite shows Criminal Minds. This is only a TV series but stuff like this happens in real life.
I really believe whether or not it’s a gendered hate crime depends on the intent of the rapist. If s/he rapes because s/he hates the gender of the person s/he is raping, then yes, it is a gender-biased hate crime. If it’s strictly about power, though? I still think it’s a hate crime, but not based on gender. Keep in mind I’m not an expert and that my personal opinion may not be correct (if there is such a thing as a right or wrong answer here).
I wouldn’t say it’s inherently gendered, but it can be in certain contexts. It certainly has been used as a weapon against women in the past – just look at the history of how white police used rape to exploit and control black women during the Civil Rights era. (In that case, it also takes on a racial cast.) The ultimate goal of any rape is conquest. The reasoning is what varies.
MC2, thank for hitting the nail on the head. You’ve said everything I wanted to say and more. Rape is an issue that’s happened in my family. Rape is an issue that’s had me worried about myself and my female relatives all my life. Fear of rape has kept me inside my house at night when I would like to go out. Fear of rape has me worried about my daughters if they don’t check in with me for a couple of hours. Fear of rape changes how women allow themselves to dress. Fear of rape limits women’s ability to speak honestly with men. Rape is used against women in times of war. It is something that has limited my life and the lives of millions of women in this world. So don’t you DARE tell me that it’s not a gender-based hate crime.
Everything you guys say here is true but that doesn’t mean that Dr. Luke isn’t a rapist AND a misogynist. The judge seems to be saying that Kesha and her team failed to prove that, yet we’ve had numerous female artists come out and say that Dr. Luke is “sketchy” or “creepy” but not one male artist has said the same. If rape is solely about power and control, then why would Dr. Luke discriminate like that? He specifically targeted a woman and not a man. Whether that is relevant or not is what is being argued here, I think.
Rape happens to men, look in prisons. It is a hate crime, a weapon. So who is living under a rock here ??? Why is it always people in important positions who happen to be dufuses. I dont think it even matters what it is. Rape is a crime, in any category. I can’t believe such a statement would even be said. How can you write off rape, ever?
Yeah, its irrelevant. Its beside the point. He raped someone, he is guilty of a crime, why would anyone care about the suspected motivations. So like, if he did it “to make friends” it wouldnt be pursued? WTF
But I guess this is only being stated to knock down the supposed motivations of her lawsuit– Ie, claiming gender bias. Ok, maybe thats a bad strategy. BUT does that undo what was done- no. Does it mean what was done is now not criminal- HELL NO.
But a hate crime isn’t about one victim. It can be argued that there is an element of hate to almost all crimes – especially violent ones. Hate designation is not really about the physical act of the crime – it’s a motive descriptor. For a hate crime to stick, you have to show that the victim’s belonging to a particular protected group, and the attacker’s specific animus towards the group, is at least partially the motive for the crime. So the question becomes, did Luke 1.) target Kesha in part due to her being female (I think you could certainly argue this) and 2.) Does Luke have some general animus towards the female sex?
And rape IS about domination and power. But how does that infer a gender-related motive? And I’m very, very wary of that line of reasoning because it has an implicit argument that physical domination is an aspect of rape, and that tends to suggest that people who are perceived as “strong” or “powerful” cannot be raped. And that’s just false. The domination is psychological in a rape – and that is not limited to any particular gender or sex. Sexually indiscriminate offenders are not rare by any means.
I’m not sure if you’re replying to me, Sam, but nowhere in my comment did I say that what happened to Kesha was a hate crime. In fact, my comment was addressing the issue that Kesha’s legal team did not prove that Dr. Luke was a serial rapist who targeted women only.
My point was simply that gender is not irrelevant when it comes to the crime of rape. You keep saying that rape is only about power and control and while that may be the motivating factor, it’s not the ONLY factor.
Sexually indiscriminate rapists exist of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of rapists are men and the vast majority of rape victims are women.
Kitten: but that statistic does not necessarily go to sex or gender, which is my point. Many rapists have stated that they target women because, on average, women are smaller, which makes them easier targets. So while they target people of only one sex, sex is not the motivating feature. There’s also a phenomenon of rapists who claim to be “triggered” by certain physical features – hair color, eye color, etc.
So while you are statistically correct, that’s not a legal standard. For rape to be considered a gender-specific crime, you’d have to have evidence that gender is the sole or predominant motivation behind the majority of the crimes. Which, I’m not sure is even possible to do. Rapists, despite popular beliefs, actually vary a great deal in how they pick victims. In addition, you know as well as I do that rape statistic are woefully inadequate. In reality, we have no clue what the victim breakdown is, since male victims almost never come forward (particularly when their attacked is a female). So to be honest, I’m a little surprised that you’d make such a blanket generalization when you and I are both aware of how badly incomplete the statistics really are.
The other problem is that this correlational analysis is by no means limited to rape. For example, the vast majority of homicide victims are male (around 80%, give or take). Does such a strong gender imbalance imply that homicide is a gender-based hate crime? Not really. What it shows is that there are additional correlational factors that place men at far greater risk of being homicide victims. That’s my point. You can’t say “well, most rapes are male-on-female” and use that, alone, as evidence of gender-based hate without examining the other factors that would correlate with gender and create a more complex picture. And that’s why the argument “rape is a gender-based crime” is so problematic.
@Sam-
I don’t know how many times I have to say that I didn’t say that what happened to Kesha was a hate crime nor did I disagree with the judge’s ruling on that. I just said it here AGAIN just to be as clear as I possibly can.
What’s strange is how you contradict yourself by saying that rape has nothing to do with gender yet you go on to say that rapists often target women because they are smaller or pick targets of a particular eye color or hair color. So it’s completely believable that rapists rape because of physical stature or eye color but NOT because of physical anatomy? That doesn’t make any sense.
…because there are tons of serial killers out there who target only men, women, animals, and children with blue eyes. We hear about that all the time lol. I mean, you talk about that like it’s a common occurrence.
Also I provided no further elaboration about the statistics of male rape, other than women are more often raped that men. And um NO that’s not because I’m unaware that male rape is woefully underreported (but thanks for assuming I’m that ignorant) I was simply stating facts.
Sorry but even taking into consideration the stigma and shame that male rape victims feel and how that impacts statistics of male rape, women are STILL more often rape victims than men. I mean, you REALLY think that female rape victims don’t feel that same shame? You REALLY think that every female rape victim reports her rape?
You even said yourself that men often target women because of they’re smaller stature. Ok. So by that statement alone, women are typically smaller than men, weaker than men, and easier to control than men. Given that information and the fact that men are overwhelmingly more likely to rape than women are, then wouldn’t a natural conclusion be that women are more often victims of male rapists than men are victims of female rapists and that men are more often victims of male rapists
You keep disregarding the idea that there are male rapists who target women specifically as if misogynists don’t exist, as if no male rapist has ever targeted women ONLY because they have deep-seated anger and resentment towards women.
You are dead-wrong with that line of thinking.
Kitten, again, you’ve missed the point. I am pointing out that the fact that rape is largely a male on female offense is not evidence that it is gender-based.
You are missing my point about correlational factors. That is the crux of the issue. You cannot say that simply because most rape victims are female that rape can be considered a “gender-based” crime. That was be analogous to stating that because most homicide victims are male, that homicide can be generally regarded as a gender-based crime. What is really at play in both cases is that there are additional correlational factors at play that make women the more likely victims of rape (just as they make men the more likely victims of homicide).
And I have never denied that a rape CAN be a hate crime (if you look at my other comments, I make that clear). The problem is that you seem to believe that, given the statistics, there is something INHERENTLY gender-based about rape – and that’s not true. Rapists are often sexually indiscriminate, they are often motivated by factors other than gender (if their own testimonies can be believed, that is), etc. There is a tendency to see rape as a (solely) misogyny issue, when in factor it is often far more complex than that. The judge in this case is absolutely correct that one cannot assert that rape, in general, is a gender-based crime. Kesha could have shown that he rape was gender-based, but lacked the evidence to do so, which is what resulted in the dismissal. Which while not a good ruling, is the legally correct one.
I am hoping this is the time every single female artist who worked with Dr.Luke and had issues speaks out. Kesha needs more women not just supporting her on social media or in random interviews but actually in court.
Rape not being gender-based?! Are you kidding me?!?! Stats & big words do not replace common thinking imo.
The definition of a hate crime is “a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence”.
I worked with rapists in a professional capacity and guess what?! They were almost all misogynists! Most rapists don’t just rape women, they beat them too, emotionally abuse them, control them, etc. They absolutely raped females because their victims were women/girls.
Sam- I think you are missing a huge point that most rapes occur with people who know each other. The rapist that is “triggered” by an eye color & grabs a woman off the street for having green eyes is not the bulk of rapes. The bulk of rapes happen to people who know each other and happen from a male to a female and WOULD NOT happen if that female identified or presented as a male.
You said “most rapists are often sexually indiscriminate” This is just not true. I am sorry but even with the fact that reports are so skewed it just isn’t an accurate statement. Rape is absolutely based on who/what the rapists are attracted to.
Most rapists have a type and that type is usually first based on gender, then age, then race. Rape victims are mostly targeted based on their gender.
Ask people who have been raped “was there something inherently gender-based about the crime committed against you?” And I’ll bet all my chips that almost every single one would say “yes!”
Men do get raped also and the perp is targeting men/boys then that is also gender-based.
The burden to something being a hate crime is not “was every crime like this based on the same motivations?” White people get beaten up all the time but that doesn’t change the fact that a black person getting beaten up for being black is a hate crime. Whether a crime is a hate crime is based on the motivation of the perp- did the perp target the victim based on their gender/race, etc? Are most rapists motivated by the fact that their victim is female? YES!
Saying otherwise is discounting the serious fact that rape is largely a male to female crime and supported by us living in a culture that supports rape. If we start saying that rape is not seated in gender then we seriously lose our focus & the reality that it is a crime against humanity the percentage of woman/girls who are victims of rape around the world. And the number of females who are raped is directly tied to them being a girl/woman. It just is.
@Sam-
“The problem is that you seem to believe that, given the statistics, there is something INHERENTLY gender-based about rape – and that’s not true.”
Nope nope and nope. In fact, I made it clear several times that rape is not inherently motivated by gender. I know you enjoy arguing about things I never said so let me just copy and paste so we don’t have to go there again:
“My point was simply that gender is not irrelevant when it comes to the crime of rape. You keep saying that rape is only about power and control and while that may be the motivating factor, it’s not the ONLY factor.”
Where in my comment do I even INFER that rape is a gender-based crime? I specifically said it’s not IRRELEVANT and I stand by that. You seem to think it IS irrelevant and I very strongly disagree with you, that’s all.
A 1990 study of the motivations behind rape found the following primary three:
“The power rapist tries to intimidate his victims in order to make up for self-perceived feelings of personal or sexual inadequacy. This group made up 55% of the sample that was studied. The anger rapist finds the victim to be an easy target for release of his general anger toward women. This group made up 40% of the sample studied. The sadistic rapist is aroused by inflicting pain on the victim and usually tortures or mutilates her. This group only made up 5% of the sample studied.”
So, if we contextualize, about 55% men rape because they are threatened by women’s power, about 40% rape because they are angry at women for any variety of reasons, and 5% rape because they actually get off on injuring women.
This is obviously taking a male rapist and female victim scenario, which makes up the majority of rape upon which studies are formed.
You want to separate rape culture from misogyny as if the two have zero connection and you’re 100% wrong about that, Sam.
@MC2: THANK YOU. I wish I had seen your comment first and I wouldn’t have either bothered to respond.
But Kesha has never filed any rape or abuse charges against him. She’s never filed a police report. I’m really curious about that. And if she had filed a police report, I think it would have made all the difference in her civil suit.
@Ladysussex you’re right, it absolutely would have made a difference. Going to the hospital or seeking another form of medical attention also would have helped her case.
A few weeks back (when the preliminary injunction was denied) there was a link to statements or a deposition of her mother with statements intended to show that Kesha had contacted her after an incident and said she needed to go to the hospital – my question is why didn’t her mother oblige & get her medical attention at that time? The records from that could have been used to help substantiate the claims even if she didn’t “declare” she had been raped to the health care providers. Dr. Luke may well be a douchebag and may have told her he’d make her a star (which he did) but if Kesha was abused, mislead, coerced into dropping out of school, it sounds like her mother was complicit in some of that and Dr. Luke’s team claims to have (or has provided copies of) emails and other communications from Kesha’s mom that undermines Kesha’s case. Perhaps that is one of the reasons they did not ask for criminal charges to be filed. The bar is higher in criminal proceedings and exculpatory info or info that makes it appear as though Kesha’s mom was trying her hand at extortion of some sort would be made public. The civil case is being tried in the court of public opinion so with every battle she loses legally, she garners more support and more positive press while damaging Dr. Luke’s brand.
first off, what he should have said if he had any brain for braining would have been “not every rape is a gender motivated hate crime”. what he actually said is that no rapes are motivated by gender or hate.
secondly, yes…yes they are. all rapes are hate crimes, motivated by gender (including gender expression). if rape isn’t a hate crime…what exactly is this judge proposing that it is? simple assault? misunderstanding? #rapeculture
+1
Unfortunately the judge is female. I’m not one of those people who believe feminism is supporting all woman regardless. But she should know that statement is moronic.
+1.
This has nothing to do with feminism and yeah, I’m side-eyeing the HELL out of that judge.
^^^This. I am shaking my head over that statement.
But you misunderstand what a hate crime is.
If we wanted to get technical, almost ALL crimes are hate crimes. You don’t commit an act of violence against a person because you like them. This is also the problem with non-lawyers reading a legal decision and imputing their own understanding onto it. They tend to get it wrong.
A “hate crime” in the legal sense is a crime that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim’s belonging to a designated protected class. It’s a matter of motive. The same crime can be a hate crime or not, depending on the motive. If a white man murders a black man because he wanted to rob him of his money, that is not a hate crime. If he wanted to kill him both for money and because the white man generally hates black people, that’s a hate crime.
In order to show that Luke’s rape of Kesha is a hate crime, Kesha would have to demonstrate that Luke targeted her, at least partially, due to her sex. That’s not so hard to do. But she would also have to demonstrate that Luke has a general hatred towards the female sex, overall. And no, the rape itself is not evidence of that. It would be if rape were exclusively a crime metted out against women. But, as the judge notes, it’s not. You can’t say that rape is de facto evidence of a hatred of women. Hate crime is actually a hard thing to prove, generally speaking. Most times, when it’s handed down, you have very strong evidence from the attacker themselves of their hatred (verbal or written statements).
But seriously, I believe Kesha. And I feel awful for her. But the judge made the right decision. If you are going to plead hate crime, you need to be able to bring the evidence in that the statues require. And she didn’t. So I really fail to see any technical issues with the ruling.
A white man robbing and murdering a black man – nothing in that sentence rises to the level of a hate crime.
But what if the white guy repeatedly and preys on black men because his experience as a violent criminal has shown him that – in a system, for example, that incarcerates black men by an overwhelming majority – blacks are more expendable than whites? In other words, he knows he’s more likely to get away with it.
It’s a much more subtle dynamic at play than your average repeat sex offender/victim narrative, but how predators choose their victims – and how we as a society judge both sides of the equation for it – is very much at the heart of what hate crime legislation tries (with admittedly varying levels of success) to address.
PK, but that again misses the largest point of hate crime legislation – motive. The motive must be linked to actual animus towards the target. If a white man repeatedly seeks out black men to rob because he believes they are less likely to report, that is pattern, but it is not a hate crime. Because think of the motive. It’s a motive of convenience and pragmatism, not hatred. He wants the best chances of getting away with it. But is that evidence of genuine hatred towards them? Not legally speaking. Now, let’s say he berated the victims with racial slurs as he robbed them. Now, you probably would charge with a hate crime – because you have genuine evidence of racial animus. Does that make more sense? Again, hate crime is all about motive, and that must always be kept at the forefront.
Your example is actually not far from reality at all. Except usually, it is Latinos. Many attackers target Latinos, especially immigrants, because they presume they are here illegally and will not seek out the cops. This is a real documents phenomenon that happens. But very few of those people are ever charged with hate crimes, because usually, the decision to target Latinos is a pragmatic one, rather than one motivated by animus.
Sam- I commented above about the definition of a hate crime but will again with more explanation.
I think you are confusing the common usage of the words “hate” and “motivation” rather then the legal definitions.
A hate crime is not based on actual “hate” in the sense of dislike. The term “hate crime” is based on motivation (which you say but) of the perp to pick a victim based on the victim’s race, sex, gender,etc.
Your example “If a white man repeatedly seeks out black men to rob because he believes they are less likely to report, that is pattern, but it is not a hate crime. Because think of the motive. It’s a motive of convenience and pragmatism, not hatred”
Nope, you are wrong- this is absolutely an example of hate crime in the legal sense. The perp targeted the victim based on the victim’s race. It doesn’t matter if the white guy loves black people in his life- he targeted the victim based on his race. That is a hate crime.
You said- “The motive must be linked to actual animus towards the target”. Nope again. Was the victim targeted based on their gender, sex, race? That is the pertinent question. Motivation, in this legal sense, is why the perp targeted this person not the emotional feelings the perp has towards the victim.
A man raping a lesbian to “correct her” is “doing her a favor” and not “hating” her. This IS a hate crime because she was targeted for being a lesbian. It doesn’t matter if the perp loved or hated the victim- his motivation to victimize her was based on her sexual orientation.
I could also want to mention that hate crime laws are based on protected classes/characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Not what the motive of the perp was. But that is another long rant…..just wanted to put that out there since it’s an important piece.
This whole convo is getting me really fired up about why the hell most rapes aren’t considered hate crimes?! I’m ready for the revolution 🙂
I’m confused, when did there become some special hate crime penalty/charge for a civil case?
Very well put, Sam. Rape, in and of itself, is about the lack of consent on behalf of the victim, regardless of previous knowledge of the accused attacker. As an offence it should never be confused with a Hate Crime.
The legal definition of a hate crime isn’t that simple, though. It requires adequate proof that part of the intent of the perpetrator was to lash out a specific minority through the assault of an individual who represents that group by being part of it. Rape is hateful, but it’s not by nature what we legally define as a hate crime. It’s entirely possible that Dr. Luke is a misoginist and that informs his behavior toward women, but we don’t know that. That’s what the judge is actually trying to state here. It seems like semantic BS, but it is a distinction in the eyes of the law, and in that regard, the judge is doing her job, however frustrating it may seem.
Yeah judge, I didn’t really hate her I just wanted to terrify her, demean her, physically hurt her and scar her psychologically for life. But I didn’t really hate her.
@J, Hahaha, love that you picked up on the grammar.
I mean, there may be a legal distinction but how is male-on-female rape not about gender/misogyny–since (even homosexual) rape is always about power? Something about that statement really bothers me. No justice from the justice system–what a surprise.
Well, part of the problem is that most rape research comes from interviews with rapists. And they are not exactly reliable narrators. However, what research does exist suggests that rape is more a crime of spontaneity than planned. Most rapists do not put on all black and skulk around in bushes waiting for a victim. Most of them attack the people closest to them – family members, intimate partners. They stay close to home. Most of them also report not planning it beforehand.
The motives, honestly, vary. Some of them state that they genuinely believed that the victim was faking resistance, wanted it, etc. That’s more common when there was a history of that kind of stuff. Some of them believed that the victim had a moral obligation of some kind to have sex with them, so it wasn’t wrong (spousal rape, especially). Some of them profess that the resistance is the only way they can enjoy themselves, so they must find an unwilling partner. The list is pretty varied.
But the thing that’s wild is that most of them profess not to be misogynists. A lot of them are married, a lot of them have daughters. A lot of them otherwise treat women in their lives pretty well. It’s unnerving. There are also strong factors in brain and personality makeup that rapists tend to share. They tend to be impulsive. They tend to be prone to “splitting” type thinking. Seriously, it’s fascinating stuff. There is a Wikipedia article on the causes of sexual violence, and it’s well worth a read.
I think misogyny certainly plays a role in rape. There is a reason why rape threats are thrown against women so much. But at the same time, I think women want to believe that there’s some way to “tell” a rapist and that misogyny is a dead giveaway. And…it’s really not. They tend to believe if we could get rid of misogyny, we could get rid of rape – when in reality the research out there suggests that would be really hard to do.
I just don’t see how power can’t play out in all of those possible motive scenarios. But I think what I really mean is the act of rape is an exercise of power. Just like the act of beating someone is an exercise of physical power. You can’t beat someone without exercising physical power and control over them. It doesn’t matter what your motive was. The act is inherently one of exerting physical control over another person. Power is indivisible from the act itself. I guess that’s how I see rape + power. Even self-defense is about reasserting power.
And then since women are almost always vulnerable to physical control (and culturally and socially, women are exposed to male dominance)–I do not see how this act within this sociocultural background is somehow distinguishable from an exercise of power/misogyny when it involves women.
But to bring it back to this case, the specific industry background here is one in which there’s a culture
of commercial exploitation of women while also subjecting them to sexual + financial control. This whole litigation is gross. I hope Kesha makes it her thing, and continues to fight in order to set some precedent. Time to update the legal code.
ETA: sorry for the 5000 repetitions of the word power
She is technically partially correct in that rape is not gender motivated.
But saying it is not motivated by hate doesn’t sit well with me because the act of rape is about control, not sex and by removing hate as a motivator, it drags it back to the realm of a sex crime which is where most people are more comfortable thinking about it-if it stays there, it gives the illusion that if you don’t behave a certain way, you won’t be attacked.
Yes, I agree completely. Sad to read this ruling.
She’s talking about the legal category of ‘hate crime’. And in that sense, the judge is correct. You should read SAM’s comments upthreat. It is explained really well.
Rape is about power, control and dominance of one person over another. By dismissing this appeal, the judge has ensured that this man continues to be in a position to dominate, control and wield power over Kesha in the future.
The law is an ass.
That judge is an ass.
The judge isn’t an ass. The judge is following the law.
Yeah, laws are a reflection of society–not the creation of it. Our laws are only as good as we are.
I live in a place where people think law has virtue in itself. So effing frustrating. Changing or challenging the law becomes a sort of “unvirtuous” act.
I’m more inclined to see rape as a violent crime (taking coercion as a form of violence) and I fail to see how a contract can be enforced by using the weapons of violent crime and coercive control. I am completely ignorant of US law, of course, but it seems to me that this is an instance where, if we assume the judge is correct in her judgement, that the law and natural justice do not coincide.
This lady should have redress but it seems there is no existing avenue for her to achieve it. It’s the canary in the coal mine that something is terribly wrong with the system.
I think he worded his statement strangely, even if he was talking about legal criteria.
I also think the hate crime question is interesting. All rape victims aren’t adult women, so I think it would be hard to say that all rapes are gender motivated. The FBI defines a hate crime as “…criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Btw, gender was not in the original definition in the Civil Rights Act of 1968, but was added later.
I actually don’t love the concept of hate crimes. If you kill me for the $15 I have in my purse, or because I remind you of your mean high school teacher, or because you’re hallucinating and you think I’m a lion, or because I broke up with you, or because you hate women, I’m still dead, unjustly, and my loved ones will feel the same pain regardless of your reason. I don’t know why it makes it worse if your reason was that you are biased against me for whatever. I guess it added a needed protection against and an additional punishment to racially motivated crimes, and I don’t have a problem with that, but if my husband is killed because of a crazy coworker, and your husband is killed because he’s a Muslim, we have both suffered the same loss. Why is your husband’s murderer punished more harshly than mine? I have never felt very comfortable with that.
However, I was sexually assaulted and I can remember the way he looked at me. Like I wasn’t a person, a human being with feelings. I’m pretty sure he hated me, but that might be because I would have to hate someone to look at them that way. But maybe he was just indifferent to my humanity. I really don’t know. I’ll be very interested in what you all have to say.
Well, rape certainly CAN be a hate crime. There are examples of rapists targeting people of a certain race, for example. Or trans people. If a rapist was motivated out of a general animus towards women and there was evidence of that, a hate crime prosecution could certainly stick. But the judge here is pointing out that Kesha hasn’t presented any actual evidence (statements from Luke, writings, etc.) that would demonstrate such a general animus. That’s it. The judge isn’t arguing that rape cannot be a hate crime sometimes, just that 1.) it cannot be considered a hate crime generally due to the fact that it can happen to anybody and 2.) in this particular case, Kesha hasn’t brought forth any evidence that specifically makes Luke’s rape of her a hate crime.
You’re right. I was thinking, well he must have hated me, but that’s not the point, is it? For it to technically be a hate crime, he had to hate women in general, and be motivated by that hate, but I think he was motivated by selfishness.
You sure make a good point, GNAT.
That being said, I think the idea behind imposing stricter punishments for “hate crimes” has more to do with people who are still alive than the actual victim. In other words, that particular classification is meant to send a message to anybody who might think that discrimination is an acceptable reason to incite of inflict violence on a particular group.
Oh, good point.
I’m sorry you were assaulted, first of all. I think we have a tendency to think hate is one of the main reasons that drives people to abuse or even kill others but frankly, we tend to underestimate what indifference or a complete lack of empathy can do to a person. Hate takes a lot of energy. Indifference does not and it is frighteningly common.
Regarding hate crimes, I understand where the concept originated. But I also see how it’s a difficult topic because essentially someone is punished not only for their actions but for their thoughts a well. German law doesn’t know hate crimes. But we do have something called “base motives” in cases of first degree murder. If you kill someone simply because you like killing, that would be one of those motives. The difference between the two systems (and I’m no lawyer, I should point that out) is that in Germany a life sentence usually means you still have a chance to get out on parole after maybe 20 years. A life sentence very rarely means you’ll actually spend the rest of your life in prison. That’s where your motives comes into play because it needs to be determined how dangerous a person is. If you kill for the sake of killing, that’s most likely not going to change. If you kill because you were on drugs for example, that might be different.
So if you look at it from a safety angle and not from a punishment angle, the concept of hate crimes could be important. In general, I do agree that the message it sends to victims or relatives is not great. The fallout is the same.
Great explanation, thank you. And yes, I was looking at it from only one angle.
Great post, and a very good point.
Victims aren’t any less dead for having their murders labeled as hate crimes, you are correct. But I think the value – if you want to call it that – in putting the “hate crime” label on sexual assault is that it can lay bare the institutional and societal failings that incubate that depersonalization you speak of.
To the extent that we have a hand in creating the predators in our midst, it might be useful to at least try to understand how one segment of a population can come to be disposable to another. Plenty of man-on-woman crime is probably fueled, at least in part, by misogyny, but I think rape is different.
Boys do not grow up with the same gender-based fear girls do – that they “have” something that desperately needs protecting against all the predators out there who will “take” it without hesitation. Right, wrong, helpful or not, that gender dynamic is deeply ingrained in our cultural psyche.
We see this in the way sex assault is reported and analyzed by the media. The Greek chorus of the media can always be relied on to chime in with what the victim should have done differently to avoid being a victim in the first place. We rarely talk about the perpetrator in any meaningful way, many preferring instead to point out things like “hey, if she’d had a gun . . . ”
You bring up a good point: murder is murder – is one really “worse” than the other? But assigning federal hate crime status to sexual crimes against women and girls can be about so much more.
There are currently as many different laws and statutes covering sexual violence and abuse as there are states enforcing them. Consider everything from statutes of limitations to whether rape victims have access to suspects’/offenders’ STI test results, to which rape kits get tested (if the huge backlog even gets tested at all), to whether a rape victim can terminate parental rights of the man who fathered her child, to ages/rules of consent, and across the board to how we define sexual violence as a crime.
Federal purview could go close at least some of those state-level gaps. Law enforcement agencies, districts attorneys and states’ attorneys general overwhelmingly support the basic idea of enhanced hate crime legislation because it gives our soldiers on the ground tools to go after offenders when state laws don’t.
I’m a survivor of sexual abuse as a child. I wouldn’t say that fact defines me, but it certainly helped make me who I am. It took me a long time to realize that what happened to me didn’t just feel wrong, it was wrong.
So more than anything, I think calling rape a hate crime looks us in the eye and says “It’s not you. It’s him.” And if we say that enough, maybe we’ll start to believe it.
I’m very sorry that you were assaulted–no matter the motivation of the perp, it’s terrible for the survivor, and I hope that you’ve gotten the support, help and healing that you need.
I’ve worked with sexual assault/torture for over 30 years, and my takeaway is this: some are motivated by hate, for an individual, a gender, a profession, for a similarity to someone they already hate, for political terror/control and hatred of “the enemy”. I’ve seen people motivated by having been abused themselves, and they go on autopilot and do what’s been done to them–the person being raped has nothing to do with it, it’s primarily a replay/acting out of what happened to them. I’ve seen people do such things out of drug-or-mental-illness delusions of an actual relationship. Men raping men/boys/women/girls, women raping men/boys/women/girls–oftentimes gender is involved, oftentimes hate is involved. But not always.
But the ultimate takeaway is that whatever the reason, it’s never the survivors fault.
I am sorry that happened to you. I hope you are ok now.
Hate crime laws are important as a signal to groups and people who target specific groups, that the punishment will be severe and for them to act has a deterrent.
I am not certain how she could have ever proven her case given the law and just don’t believe her lawyers presented a solid case.
Oh GNAT I’m really sorry to hear about your experience. And yes I’ve always had a problem with the term “hate crime” because we know that the actual crime was a crime that needs to be punished, but determining if someone was hating seems like you are prosecuting a “thought crime”. I know that’s different from the cogent point you were making, but to me it just adds an extra layer of questionability. (Pretty sure I just made that word up!)
I think hate crimes are an important legal distinction within a society that has historically turned a blind eye to crimes motivated by race, especially. Because there exists a culture in which people feel they can act with impunity around race (and they are not incorrect since there is that legal precedent, as the problem of all-white juries long illustrated), there should be a special category for those crimes.
But the designation should be exercised with care and awareness of intent. I see it similar to affirmative action–a temporary measure ultimately meant to rectify the injustices of the past. Once you more or less do so at a systemic level, you don’t have a need for these tools.
I generally do not think black Americans should be charged with hate crimes if they target white people. I understand that’s confusing. But I think it goes back to what the designation of a hate crime is intended to rectify. And there is not a culture in which a black American can expect to commit crimes against white people with impunity. More like they can expect punity even without the crime–that’s the relevant legal history in question.
^^PK basically wrote the same thing, but for the context of women + rape.
Purely in legal terms the judge is correct. It is not considered a hate crime until someone changes the law. It would have to include same sex couples, domestic rape and every type of rape there is. It should be a law but the other categories probably hinder the possibility at this time.
Emotionally I wish the outcome could be different but, realistically, this is the way it is.
I think Kesha is screwed either way. Her career is officially over and the only silver lining is that she exposed him and probably saved future victims from dealing with him.
Sooo, it’s a given that she was raped but since it’s not a hate crime (according to the Ann Coulter wannabe), it’s not bad enough to break a contract? Am I reading that right? I’m only on half a cup of coffee here…I feel like I just woke up in the 50’s.
Um, no. The judge did not find that Luke did in fact rape her. She said that, even if it were presumed that all of Kesha’s allegations are true, they cannot fit within the statutory scheme of a hate crime, since a hate crime would require that Luke have been motivated by a general animus towards women in general, as opposed to animus towards Kesha in particular.
And the judge wasn’t ruling on the contract issue. Kesha also sued Luke in tort. That was what the judge was ruling on.
If I understand what the judge said, she was barred from finding much in Keisha’s favor because of time and jurisdictional limitations. She can’t say that Keisha was raped or not, because the rape didn’t happen in New York, and she doesn’t have jurisdiction. In order to prove a hate crime, Keisha would have to prove that Dr. Luke hated women, and his hatred for women was the motivation for the rape, and she didn’t prove that. I don’t necessarily think it’s fair, and I hate that the contract stands, but from what it says here, I don’t know how the judge could have decided otherwise.
@GNAT not only did the alleged rape occur in a different jurisdiction, but Keisha has never filed any police report against Dr. Luke.
I was thinking the same thing. What difference does it make in this case how you define rape? Nobody should be obligated to work with their rapist, whether it was a hate crime or an act of passion or love or whatever these idiots think rape is.
Because, and I hate saying this, she didn’t report it. You are allowed to believe Kesha and believe that Luke is a rapist. However, the judge cannot. Why? Because Luke has never been arrested, never been tried and never been convicted. You know that whole innocent until proven guilty thing? It applies here. The judge can’t presume that Luke raped her, because that has never been adjudicated in criminal court. She’s limited to treating the case civilly.
@Sam, I agree with that, but then that should be said: there was no reported rape, so no rape, period. Can’t get off the contract. That would be a reasonable explanation. A hard one, but I can see where they’re coming from.
However as soon as they started bickering about whether (her) rape was a hate crime or not, that’s a completely different issue altogether. What I am saying is that IF there is rape (or some other sort of crime) involved, the victim should not have to fight over definitions to get away from the abuser.
Edit: To clarify: I’m not speaking just about this case, nor I am against the judge, just that in general this sort of playing with semantics irks me.
She’s right, and here’s why:
Hate crime status is actually pretty hard to prove. Generally speaking, you would need some kind of strong evidence (verbal statement, etc.) that the attacker was motivated by some protected status. It is extremely hard to “infer” a hate crime. That’s why prosecutions for them are actually fairly rare. Can a rape be a hate crime? Certainly. There have been cases of rapists targeting people of a certain race, for example. But by definition, it’s not a hate crime, since it can occur to people of any race, gender, sex, identity, etc.
To the argument that since it is motivated by hate, it can be a hate crime – No. The term “hate crime” is itself misleading. It is not sufficient that some animus motivated the crime – if that were the case, most crimes would fit. “Hate crime” expressly means a crime directed at a target due to their belonging to a protected class. That’s it. In order to win, Kesha would have had to demonstrate that Luke’s actions were motivated by a GENERAL hatred of women (hatred towards her alone is not sufficient).
It’s a legal decision and the judge has to be mindful of setting a precedent. Every legal decision can be used as support for future legal decisions. I think when she said ALL rapes are not hate crimes she was making the distinction that if she agreed they were this would affect all future rape trials. It also seems to me that Kesha’s team were throwing everything out there to see if anything would stick. That’s a strategy. It didn’t work very well. It is also difficult to defend her position because she had a contract (a horrible one, but a contract) that she signed and benefitted from. This happens to a lot of artists. In 1996 Prince wrote “slave” on his face for just this reason.
This judge is a woman. I see a few commenters saying ‘He’ toward her. I feel so awful for Kesha. Just let the poor girl go. Dr Luke is so messed up to, after allllll this, he still wants to work with her. To me, that shows he wants to keep his control over her or ruin her career. The number of women who spoke out against him and in favor of her is shocking. I truly believe her that he is everything she says he his. All this is so toxic and I just hope it has a positive outcome for her.
That’s my big gripe here. Why is Sony acting this way? Just let her go. You’d think they’d want to avoid this mess. Especially when you have so many female performers backing her up and some of them (Kelly Clarkson, for example) basically confirming that, yes, Dr. Luke is a major sleaze. Sure, they’d lose money by releasing her, but how much have they spent on this litigation thus far? And how much bad PR have they incurred? It amazes me that anybody thought that fighting her would be a good idea.
I definitely believe Kesha, and I think Sony should find a way to release her from the contract but I fear that it is a bit more complicated that we presume. First of all, it establishes a serious precedent for them – what happens the next time an artist wants out of their contract for any reason, also not proven in court? What do they do? (We may choose to believe Kesha but as far as the legal system is concerned, unfortunately that jerk Luke is free and clear.)
Also, if I understand this correctly, she has a contract not only with Sony but with him directly?? In which case she still needs to obtain a legal way of severing ties with him, not Sony.
I truly believe SONY is waiting for her contract with him to end so they can cash in on the day she’s finally able to legally record again. Imagine the next album she’ll put out? Some of the biggest names in music are supporting her and offering to collaborate when she can. Everyone will be falling over themselves to work with her. No way in hell will SONY give up the possible sales of Kesha’s freedom album.
It’s sick, truly sick, but I believe this is why they won’t release her. Because they see huge future profits from her.
It is puzzling that Sony hasn’t just offered to buy her contract from Kemosabe Records to make this bad press go away.
Kelly Clarkson called Dr. Luke “demeaning”, a liar and of questionable character. That’s pretty much all I need to know because you KNOW that you’re a straight-up ahole if Kelly Clarkson is talking sh*t about you.
Kesha has presented zero evidence to support her claims so i understand why this female judge continues to side with Dr luke. Kesha has worked with that man for years & has claimed he had her under his spell so its odd that in those years she has not one incriminating text, email, voicemail from him that she can present in court to prove he abused/ sexually assaulted her. That’s what I find extremely odd, the judge cant take keshas side & let her out of her contract based on her words alone, the legal system doesn’t work that way & should never work that way because if it did, we would all be in danger of serving time for a crime we didn’t commit. To make matters worse in this case is keshas deposition from years back when she swore under oath she wasn’t raped by this man, so who is to say she was lying then & telling the truth now or that she was telling the truth then and lying now? We all simply do not know, including the judge because there isn’t not a tiny bit of evidence that can make us say Dr luke raped kesha. Although other artists have come forward to say how evil Dr luke is & how he is an egomaniac, they have also said he has never sexually assaulted them so kesha is his alleged only victim which i find odd too, cuz this man works with multiple young woman & in most cases like this, men like that usually have multiple victims. I’m not saying she is lying but i’m not saying she is telling the truth either because there isn’t any form of evidence to use to judge this case. One may ask why she would make something like rape up, then you remember she wants to break out of a contract that she is stuck in, Sony has told her she doesn’t have to work with Dr luke ever again & she can work with other producers signed to sony.
Kesha wouldn’t be the first to lie under oath, and she won’t be the last, because when someone is THAT terrifying you do what they say. He clearly had a mental hold on her. Also, it’s very, very, very difficult to prove a rape happened. That is the reason why so many people do not come forward. The only thing worse than having your life taken from you in a rape, is then being told you are a liar.
I feel for her. I’d like to see her come out of this better, stronger. I’m sorry she saw no justice.
I’m not saying it’s right or fair, but this situation is a sad testament to filing complaints immediately and documenting any evidence right away.
My Hope for Kesha is that she gets rid if Geragos and gets a better lawyer. Or at least adds one on to her team for the California case.
I couldn’t agree with you more. It seems her legal team severely underestimated Sony’s opposition. I can appreciate folks’ concern over the quote from the ruling. However, as a litigant, if you allege a hate crime, there needs to be facts to prove that allegation. And that’s the lawyer’s job to ascertain as much as possible if there are facts to warrant including any allegation in a pleading. The judge can only rule on what is before her.
“Every rape is not a gender motivated hate crime”!!!!!!!!! Ummmm, I think you will find it is the very definition of rape!!!! Speaking as a survivor this wilful ignorance infuriates me!
So then what do you say to the men, trans people, queer people, etc. who have been raped? Or to the women who have been assaulted by females? That their rapists where just confused? I’m sure that will go over great.
I am sorry you experienced that.
This case is hard because when you get past feelings, there aren’t enough facts. No real proof and a judge can only judge based on evidence.
@Magnoliarose, thank you for your kind thought, I appreciate it.
@Sam, I can’t even begin to address your comment. I guess I had automatically assumed that intelligent persons would be able to work out that no matter what sexual identity one has, that gender covers all permutations of the spectrum, and I do believe they can all be victims of rape, unfortunately.
What I want to know is why the SAME judge is the one who looks at the appeal? The judge didn’t like what the one party said in the first place, so why would one think that the judge would change his or her mind? Of course the judge will go with his or her original thought, imo.
That happened in the Dassey/Avery trials, too, didn’t it?
Wow. There is a lot of reaching going on here. Personally, I don’t think rape can be considered a hate crime in most instances. Do men rape women with the motivation of hating women? Doubt it. They can be motivated by power and control and sexual desire. I sincerely doubt that rapist do it because they have a general hate towards women.
I would respectfully disagree. Rape is not generally about “sexual desire” it is more about hate, power and control.
And I think “a gender motivated hate crime” is actually pretty accurate.
Just one woman’s opinion.
Mmmhmmm. Rapists are never misogynists.
In fact, misogyny is just a myth…something us women-folk made up to make the menz look bad.
I’ll just leave this right here: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/misogynist-pro-rape-group-cancels-planned-international-meet-up-after-heavy-criticism/
Oh, that makes sense. Rapists actually respect and revere women. They consider them their equals. They admire their strength and power. That’s why they rape them. Thank you for explaining that. Here I thought rape was a hateful act of violence. I guess I just didn’t feel the love of women from the man who assaulted me. Must have been an off day for me.
First of all, rape has nothing to do with sexual desire. And does it occur to you that a man who wants or needs to exercise control and power over women DOESNT LIKE WOMEN? Do you think those two things aren’t related?
I hope whatever Sony and that garbage human they have so much faith in are gaining is worth it. Because the next time I look at a Sony product in a store, I am passing it by. Its just my own tiny monetary protest.
I will check Consumer Reports for a quality electronics line that doesn’t make me feel dirty just for buying a new tv.
Your question of whether or not every rapist is a misogynist is pretty much………no. You’re saying right now that every single rapist is masculine and a man, basically, which is not the case. I agree with the judge. Rape is not gender-motivated. It’s not about sex. It’s about power and it is a violent act that even though can be between a man and a woman, does not discriminate between gender.
Couldn’t any violent crime be labeled a “hate crime?”
Under the law, no. Hate crime is a descriptor that has to do with motive, not the physical action of the crime itself. To be a hate crime, the attacker must be motivated by a hatred of the protected class that the victim belongs to. That’s the crux of the issue. Now, you can believe that motive shouldn’t matter that much, which is a perfectly reasonable belief. But that’s how the law views it right now.
I can’t believe that the testimony of Kesha’s therapist, of her family and friends didn’t carry more weight in the trial. Kesha developed an eating disorder, practiced self-mutilation and developed an addiction while the abuse was going on. She was terrified of working with him. Having to work for someone who literally makes you ill should count for something. At the very least, this constitutes an extremely hostile work environment. I wished that Kesha had been represented by a lawyer with more experience in cases like hers.
Sony should do the right thing and just let her out of her contract. Hypothetically, Sony would be in a world of trouble if Kesha were to attempt / commit suicide (or decide to shoot and kill her abuser) during the court-ordered fulfillment of her contract. I wouldn’t want that responsibility if I were Sony, especially with the public support that Kesha has received. Seriously, dudes – cut your losses and let her go.
First, good discussion. Second, thanks for reporting on Kesha. I had asked again yesterday but my post mysteriously disappeared…
Third, women will go nowhere until laws are changed. Her word vs his puts the burden of proof on the victim (or his word vs hers) and that is simply unacceptable.
Jian was found not guilty because the judge found the testimony inconsistent. He didn’t testify. He should have to imo, if the accusers are made to testify then he should as well.
The laws are outdated at best, and downright horrifyingly harmful.
Every rape is an act of violence, whether or not in involves blood. Whether it’s a “hate crime” or “gender-based” (and it could be argued that all rapists hate women, conscious of it or not) is almost irrelevant. Rape is about power and control, wresting it away from someone who would rather not give it, and way more personal than, say, stealing someone’s wallet or punching them in the face. The fact that a female judge doesn’t know this is problematic, but even worse is that our legal system doesn’t recognize it/classify it as such to protect people properly.
It baffles me that no one here is leaving the door open that MAYBE he didn’t do it… Feminists are bandwagoning so hard on this that even if it was proven in a court of law that he didn’t do it there will still be people saying that he did and that poor Kesha is a terrible victim…. Kesha is blatantly trying to get out of her contract by making up accusations she cannot prove which btw have already ruined Dr Luke’s reputation and career… New era feminists are making every female to be a victim and it bothers me, I am a female and I refuse to act like a professional victim…. You know women can lie too, not only men lie
I’m of the same mind, actually. Maybe he didn’t do it. Kesha’s previous deposition under oath aside, there is no proof here. Literally none. After years of such widespread abuse, you’d think there would be SOMETHING to back up her allegations. I think the man is sleazy and creepy, but sleazy and creepy do not necessarily mean a person is a rapist! I saw someone up thread saying Luke *must* have done it because Kesha developed an eating disorder and drug habit. An eating disorder could also be the result of working in an industry where tabloids pick apart a person’s appearance at every opportunity (and Kesha did get shit on a TON because of her weight/looks). She also wouldn’t be the first person in Hollywood to pick up drugs. That’s hardly proof of a sexual assault.
I think we are so busy tripping over ourselves to support alleged victims that we don’t stop to think that false allegations DO happen and they ruin the accused’s life. And you know what? No one deserves to be branded a rapist and have their lives ruined based on an allegation that can’t be proven.
Amen.
I’m determined to stay calm here, even though I feel sick to my stomach after reading LG’s post. It is unusual for a woman to falsely accuse someone of rape. It happens, yes, and when it does, it gets a ton of publicity. The much, much, much more frequent scenario is that the rape is never reported and the rapist is free to rape again. I believe that women like you want to believe that rape accusations are false because you don’t want to believe something like that could happen to you. Because you’re so smart, or you do this or you don’t do that – your words are very telling – “I refuse to act like a professional victim.” How DARE you say that women who have been raped and/or are fighting against rape are “professional victims?” They are survivors. You’re the one who is weak and scared. You say that Keisha is making this up because she can’t prove it. When it’s your word against someone else’s it’s very difficult to “prove it.” I didn’t report my assault because of people like you. I knew I wouldn’t be believed because he was a very prominent member of his community and I didn’t have any proof. There is a very high likelihood that you will be sexually assaulted in your lifetime. I hope if that happens that the people judging your situation have more understanding of the facts about rape and the courage it takes to come forward and more compassion for their fellow human beings than you do. Maybe you should try refusing to live in denial.
GoodNamesAllTaken: I’m so sorry for what happened to you. And I believe you.
Most people do not believe Kesha because they’re jumping on a “feminist bandwagon.” Those of us who are considering validity to her claims are approaching it from the perspective that aspects of the situation seem to support the potential for abuse – her age when he signed her, the response from other female musicians who echo unhappy experiences with him, the fact that he’s utilizing his contractual power to withhold royalties and financially corner her, her claims that Sony offered to break the contract if she dropped the charges (her word, sure, but Sony has yet to offer a statement suggesting otherwise), and the fact that historically many rape victims do lie under oath because they’re afraid of the repercussion of telling the truth about their attacker or feel trapped in a position of powerlessness.
My decision to remain open to the possibility that Kesha’s experience is legitimate is based on years of experience from working in a trauma hospital, my own medical background, and the personal experience of having both a mother and a sister who were victims of rape. Assuming the rest of us are speaking from a position of ignorance or from an attempt to “victimize” women as a whole is pretty arrogant on your part. You should reconsider your position that the rest of us are idiots.
Sony should just buy out Kesha’s contract with this asshat…that would be the classy move.
Judge schmudge. Never mind what the personal motivation is for a specific rape, rape is taking bodily what’s not yours and what has not been permitted to you, by force and/or trickery. That’s a hate crime morally but any woman who has been raped can also fairly say it’s a crime against not only her person but her gender too. Therefore yes, it *is* a hate crime.
I just read your post about Kesha suing Sony. If you are old enough to remember in 1993 George Michael sued Sony arguing “slavery” and restraint of trade and the treaty of Rome. That trick got whooped in court although Dreamworks SGK ( read “Spielberg ” and two other dudes) came and bought his contract out for 20 Million. The funny thing is that now George is back with Sony. He is a far greater talent than Kesha could ever hope to be, and if he couldn’t get free she was stoopid to think that she could. And as an African American I am offended whenever anyone who makes millions crying “slavery”. If they lived here in 1865 and were black the would know the true meaning of the word…
Regards,
To claim slavery on her part is such a blatantly ignorant move, I would be appalled and deeply offended if I were African-American – even as a Canadian I know enough about American history to understand how wrong this is
Also, Kesha either lied during her deposition or she’s lying now… Either way she’s a liar
You do realise they’re referring to slavery in the legal sense and not in the historical sense. There’s a legal definition of slavery, and people are still enslaved to this very day. And slavery is something that’s happened to people of all races. Even white people have been enslaved throughout history.
we’ve got to dive deeper on this one note…. Rapist are sexual terrorists essentially…
mass shooters are terrorists for sure….
and a man who rapes and tortures (one or the other) is committing a hate crime against women….
simple as that
This thread is making me understand why not everyone has the brains to be accepted to law school… Most of you make zero sense and fail to understand basic law concepts and definitions
Nothing is less intelligent than a closed mind. And nothing is more nauseating than someone who feels superior to everyone else for no reason. You don’t strike me as particularly law school material yourself, from reading your posts. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I think most people here probably understand very well what the law is saying in this case. The law is a tool (in more ways than one). It’s either good or bad. When it’s good, it protects people. When it’s bad, it keeps certain parts of the population down. When your fate depends on who has the priciest, best law firm, that means you can buy your verdict. In a supposedly democratic society, there’s something wrong with that. (and no I don’t hate our government, democracy is the worst form of government but I agree that it’s probably better than all the others).
I never believed Kesha to begin with.
Look at the facts: she testified under oath he didn’t rape her. Now when she wants out of her contract she suddenly remembers it?
Please. Sony invested tens of millions of dollars in her career. She can’t just give a two weeks notice and walk away from that.
My guess is Universal or Warner Bros. offered her a better deal, and she thought by crying “rape” Sony would be too embarrassed to keep her. Then they called her BS.
I think people on this website should be ashamed of their rapist witch hunt. As of this moment, Dr. Luke is innocent. Kesha had her day in court and lost.
You do realise that people lie under oath often, right? It’s not like you put people under oath and they automatically tell the truth about everything.
Kesha has made about $70 million in profit for Sony.
She made the rape allegation in 2005 just months after she signed with Luke. She was unknown at the time so your better deal theory doesn’t work.
She hasn’t lost because the case hasn’t gone to trial yet. Some of her counterclaims were dismissed purely for technical reasons. The judge never weighed in on whether or not the abuses happened. But the case is still going forward.
Rape isn’t mysogynist since men are also targets, but it is definitely a hate crime.