[flagged]
Anyone promoting Bill Cosby the person is definitely doing something questionable, which is the relevant point.
I'm bringing up Ford and Gandhi because I think they're generally considered respectable, but could be accused of being in the category of those to "shun" based on verbal statements or opinions. I am not aware that either did anything. Are we shunning people because they've advocated opinions that in their time weren't controversial, but are now?
Bill Cosby's conviction was overturned on a technicality. Do we shun him even if the courts couldn't/didn't convict him?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-bill-cosbys-conviction...
Or similarly, "unconvicted" but alleged unsavory characters, perhaps pop musicians, TV hosts, presidents, presidential candidates, and so on.
Do you just shun everyone who has simply been accused of misconduct? What if the accusers recant or are found to be lying? It's happened.
Crystal Mangum, now incarcerated for murder, has recanted her rape accusation against the Duke la crosse players:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-falsely-accused-duke-lacros...
> Bill Cosby's conviction was overturned on a technicality. Do we shun him even if the courts couldn't/didn't convict him?
Yes, the public is well entitled to shun him on the basis of what he did indeed confess to .. that is entirely orthogonal to that confession being rejected on a technicality and thus not being part of a formal legal conviction.
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/bill-cosby-quaaludes-s...
So he appears to have confessed at least to be a drug dealer.
With Cosby's testimony included he was convicted, it and the womens testimonies were found to be sufficient under law to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
When the testimony was excluded on technical grounds the statements by Cosby weren't demonstrated to be false or questioned in any way, they were simply set aside, as true as they ever were.
Again, the general public is entitled to shun Cosby on the basis of the testimonies presented including his own words which haven't been discredited, just excluded.
But my point is not the minutiae of Cosby's trial, but that he is "unconvicted" - and if you want to claim to not encourage rapists/murderers/the corrupt are we talking about:
1. THE CONVICTED: people who have been convicted of these felonious crimes (e.g. Stewart, Tyson, ),
2. THE UNCONVICTED: unconvicted people who have made statements relating to these crimes, which may not even be crimes in their country or era (Cosby, Ford, Gandhi), or
3. THE ACCUSED: people who have simply been accused of these crimes (i.e. #metoo or other public accusations with no conviction and public denials, Woody Allen, Sam Altman, etc)
Made his fortune from punching people in the head, so that is such a weird example of a person that you are expecting others to empathise with or support. A whole lot of people find sports that result in brain injuries to be pretty distasteful.
That people choose to find it distasteful is fine with me.
I'm talking about Mike Tyson, the convicted rapist, not Mike Tyson as a boxer.
Just a reminder to never talk to the FBI without a lawyer
Hmmm
"The grand jury returned an indictment on June 4, 2003, charging Stewart with conspiracy, obstruction of justice, making false statements, and securities fraud." https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/...
I think she beat "securities fraud", but was convicted on conspiracy, obstruction, and making false statements:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040307121033/https://money.cnn...
So, yeah, technically she didn't get convicted of insider trading/securities fraud, but managed a felony conviction around the charges.
Good catch. So I guess we can't easily dismiss Martha from our category of people we refuse to promote.