this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
243 points (96.9% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

18 readers
2 users here now

General discussion about movies and TV shows.


Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:

::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::

Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!


Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)


Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

No one said they couldn’t fire roiland because it violates laws. They said he shouldn’t have been fired because of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. That’s separate from the law.

But the text messages to minors should be enough for anyone to want him fired.

[–] QHC@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are you talking about? "Innocent until proven guilty" is only relevant from the perspective of the law.

[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

The law isn’t the beginning and end of thought. The law was made because of the principle. It’s not fully encompassing of the principle.

[–] XTornado@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Plus firing somebody that then it results it was innocent all along could as be very bad PR. Not in this case since ethere other stuff....

[–] Juno@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Is there any good proof about the messages or is it just speculative. If it's speculative, it's not enough.