Legal doesn't always mean morally right. He's a free man, but that doesn't mean he still needs to take up one of the rare vip spots, I'm sure there are unheard voices and talented actors who deserve it more.

I mean are they wrong that the rich never really get punished? Trump and those 34 convictions that resulted in nothing already forgotten? Diddy getting a not guilty for the severe charges also forgotten?

The courts do matter, for legal decisions. They don't have the final say beyond that. Sure, you can use them as a data point, but the requirement for finding someone guilty for a criminal charge is "beyond a reasonable doubt" (aka, there's only a slim chance it isn't true).

Socially, that isn't required. Usually we only care if it's more likely than not. Sometimes, depending on the severity of the accusation, a lot of people have an even lower barrier for taking it into account to effect their opinion of the person. For example, if there's some evidence that someone is a murderer, but not "beyond a reasonable doubt," I'm probably not going to hang out with them, especially alone.

What matters is what’s true, and the courts ARE getting more compromised every day. The rich get punished less, that’s the way it’s always worked.

I guess this is where you took the most extreme possible opposing view and argued against that.

When it comes to matters of judgement, I use my own. The courts don't have to be corrupt for them to fail sexual assault victims, but yes there is plenty of corruption, too.

Are you suggesting economics don't affect putcomes in the courts? Are you suggesting that there is no corruption within the judicial system? Are you saying that sexual predators always go to jail for their crimes?

Is defending spacey really the creep hill to die on?

I find this especially hilarious considering his cases were on around the same time as Cosby’s and Weinstein’s.

It seems people honestly believe that Kevin Spacey has more pull/better lawyers than Harvey fucking Weinstein…

You seem to be saying you don't understand the concept or "innocent until proven guilty." That applies to legal repercussions. It doesn't mean that a man with many accusations of sexual assault deserves the benefit of the doubt. I find the numerous accusations against him credible, and I found his denials uncredible. Especially when you consider several of his accusers have died under questionable circumstances.

Not when your remaining accusers dropped their charges against you after a few of them died in mysterious accidents after you put out a weirdly threatening video on Christmas.

Right, like if I were on a jury, I don't know how I would vote given the evidence against him. But his reputation as a sleaze preceded the accusations. I wouldn't leave my kids alone with the guy.