- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dan Schneider Sues ‘Quiet On Set’ Producers For Defamation
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:29 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:29 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Then they forgot to include any of that in the documentary. Putting thinly veiled adult jokes into kids shows is weird, but its not pedophilia or abuse.
They didn’t forget, they just knew he’d sue their asses and win. Really, do you think just bullying on the set made Jennette McCurdy make this video at the exact same time he’s getting a lifetime achievement award: YouTube
0
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:30 pm to Bench McElroy
I’d equate Dan more to Joe Paterno. Even less so. He turned a blind eye to stuff that was rumored to have been going on.
Here’s the thing. He was the head guy. It is your responsibility to know what’s going on. Maybe some things slip through the cracks here and there, but there was way too much smoke for him not to have investigated. Also, when sexual abuse of children is involved, especially happening so much, you get NO slack. Nor should you.
Look at what these kids are doing now. Look at the damage it caused. He didn’t directly abuse them, he’s not a pedophile, but blood is 100% on his hands.
Here’s the thing. He was the head guy. It is your responsibility to know what’s going on. Maybe some things slip through the cracks here and there, but there was way too much smoke for him not to have investigated. Also, when sexual abuse of children is involved, especially happening so much, you get NO slack. Nor should you.
Look at what these kids are doing now. Look at the damage it caused. He didn’t directly abuse them, he’s not a pedophile, but blood is 100% on his hands.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:32 pm to MrJimBeam
quote:
The real issue is did Dan know about any of it at the time like Paterno at Penn state?
No the real issue is if any of Dan’s bosses knew about this, and the answer is “Yes”. That’s why the documentary makes Dan the fall guy because it’s tied up nicely in the end, and Dan isn’t explicitly called a pedophile. So Viacom itself is not held liable for this, which would destroy the studio if the rumors about Dan are true.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:37 pm to Porpus
quote:And in what universe does this even begin to exonerate Sandusky?
Sandusky's medical records indicate he had extremely low testosterone, even hypogonadism, throughout the relevant time period. And yet we have people claiming he forced them to engage in multiple sex acts per day (and not as the receptive partner).
Rape and sexual abuse is not commensurate with testosterone levels; if that were so we could lock up the 5% of us men who have the highest levels and the abuse would stop.
Ur dum.
Sandusky’s guilt is a legal fact: you’re either dumb or you want to be “that hipster counter guy”. (Or more likely, both)
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:38 pm to kciDAtaE
quote:
Imagine if this it true but the story never comes to light. Without witnesses coming forward, it’s difficult to prove.
Jennette McCurdy has all but come out and said that he did it to her. And if Dan is guilty, it likely takes down a multi billion dollar company.
If the allegations are true, there’s no way the Viacom bosses haven’t come out and directly threatened all of the girls. Like I’m talking about levels of up to killing them and their families. That’s how big of a horrific secret this is if it were ever exposed.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:39 pm to L S Usetheforce
quote:
Dan is the lead pedo. This story hasn’t just come to light.
There are only two options. Dan is not a pedo and the show was an actual hit piece on him. Running ads about the documentary and talking about sexual abuse and then right after showing clips of him in them OR Dan is a pedo and is the stupidest person in the world along with his lawyers. The documentary is over and most people who watched it were like that's all that he did. If he is a pedo, he got away with it. The amount of discovery that could be done with this suit would easily uncover old pictures, phone calls, texts, and out of court settlements. It would be very hard to be a pedo for that amount of time and with the era we are now living in without any leaving any proof behind. If there is any proof that he is a pedo, he loses his suit and probably goes to jail for a very long time.
And the hardest part for a public figure to prove defamation is they have to prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice. After watching the first couple of hours of that documentary, I dont think proving actual malice will be a problem. They were going after that dude. After watching the previews for it I definitely thought he banged Amanda Bynes into what should have been a psych ward.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:42 pm to Porpus
McQueary doesn’t have a HC gig and the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist hasn’t written a book yet, therefore, Sandusky was railroaded on 45 counts of sexual abuse.
So you’re a lunatic. Gotcha.
So you’re a lunatic. Gotcha.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:47 pm to Porpus
quote:
Do your homework. Penn State was a cash grab. Nobody got molested.
Dude are you 5?
There was first hand testimony of Sandusky sodomizing a kid in a locker room shower.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:52 pm to lsuconnman
quote:
I thought that initially. But, there’s no way he survives me too. His saga also took place at the same time Shari Redstone was fighting to merge CBS with Viacom. Les Moonves was more valuable than Dan Schneider, and he shared a similar fate. Redstone went scorched earth on every prominent position she thought might threaten her merger.
Here’s the difference between Les Moonves and Dan Schneider: Moonves is on the top of the chain. If Les goes down, then the rest of the company can plead ignorance and it survives, or they can say that Les threatened them into complying. That’s also why they were willing to hack Harvey’s head off even when he was the King of Hollywood.
Dan though, no, way more people will go down for it. Dan’s boss, the CEO of Viacom, and the board all go down. If the rumors are true, it’s the biggest scandal in the history of Hollywood. They don’t have the out that Dan just liked drinking at the Four Seasons with his leading ladies after work. There’s rumors that he did shite directly on company property. They knew and covered it up on what he was up to. With Harvey people just looked in the opposite direction.
And by the way, one of Les Moonves’ accusers is E Jean Carroll. So I don’t believe that bitch, especially when she claims she was sexually assaulted by him in an elevator, a very bad place to rape someone unless you have the key from the fire department, which even then people will find suspicious and it’s in all likelihood got cameras in there too. Plus she has six different rape allegations with six different men (all loaded), which is kind of odd for someone who lives in a nice Manhattan apartment and not a sex slave to constantly find herself in these situations. All she did was get on an elevator with Les, recognize him, and then did exactly what that Japanese woman did to Bill Murray in his hotel room in “Lost in Translation.”
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:53 pm to sledgehammer
quote:
She said Dan was an A hole, but her mom is the one who ruined her life and urged her to calorie count.
“The Producer” that did things to her. I’m sure she’s just talking about his bullying. Not to mention that fricked up video that even the documentary showed you.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:54 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I see that too. But the show showed that he fired those guys pretty quickly as well when it was brought to him. Sure, he could be lying and I’m sure to some degree he is lying about the extent he knew bad shite was happening.
So when you say abuse I’m thinking this going on under his watch is abuse. He doesn’t have to have sexual intercourse with them for it to be abuse.
He and the kids parents, and they aren’t the only ones in Hollywood, exploit children.
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 6:55 pm
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:58 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
Every time a person of size makes it big they try to tear them down
frick Ricky. He deserves all this backlash for putting his 'testicles' on Monique way back in 1985!
Posted on 5/1/24 at 6:59 pm to TN Tygah
quote:
I’d equate Dan more to Joe Paterno. Even less so. He turned a blind eye to stuff that was rumored to have been going on.
No, Dan’s boss would be Joe Paterno and his boss’ boss would be the athletic director.
quote:
Here’s the thing. He was the head guy. It is your responsibility to know what’s going on.
There were people above Schneider. You’re letting the documentary fool you there. There were more shows on Nick that he didn’t have a direct hand in like their animation, game shows, Nick Jr, Nick @ Night, and occasionally they’d give someone not named Dan a chance to make a show without his involvement.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:03 pm to ryanlsu
quote:
The amount of discovery that could be done with this suit would easily uncover old pictures, phone calls, texts, and out of court settlements.
Well we already know for a fact that the out of court settlements happen since Viacom outright tried to bribe Jennette McCurdy to keep her trap shut, and she refused.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:06 pm to OMLandshark
quote:welcome back dude
OMLandshark
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:35 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Dan was a fricking piggy bank for Paramount and Viacom and was really, really good at his job. Dan knew what kids wanted before they did and really didn’t have a miss (outside of that adult sitcom he tried to do, but stick with what you know).
Although counterintuitive, this was a problem for Viacom management. At that time Redstone was focused on discontinuing investment in original programming for BET/MTV/Nick/etc while funneling all linear revenues into content creation under their consolidated streamer.
It’s pretty hard to argue strangling network programming is a good idea when a networks programming is printing money. At the same time Schneider had his sight set on being the next Chuck Lorre and creating content for network television. Removing him killed two birds with one stone. It forced Nick down the path of syndicated reruns, and he became radioactive for any competitors.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:53 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
The Producer” that did things to her. I’m sure she’s just talking about his bullying
Yeah, that’s my point. Dan was a hard guy to work for, had a foot fetish, and included some innuendo in a kids show, but he wasn’t raping anyone or a pedophile.
If Jeanette had been raped by him, you’d think she’d spoken up about it by now.
Peck and that other pedophile aren’t on the same ball field as Dan.
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:02 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
there’s no way the Viacom bosses haven’t come out and directly threatened all of the girls. Like I’m talking about levels of up to killing them and their families
There is the OML we have missed
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News