You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
4

[–] tonberry2 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It was thrown out on a technicality:

"Judge Philip Gutierrez wrote in his ruling Judd's relationship as an actress with the film producer was not covered under the California statute Judd had sued under. Further, although the law was changed in 2018 to include producer/actress relationship, Gutierrez said it couldn't be applied retroactively. The judge said he wasn't determining whether Judd was sexually harassed by Weinstein "in the colloquial sense of the term."

What does he mean he can't apply the law "retroactively"? She is suing him now, in 2018, when the law applies.

0
7

[–] FuckRedditInTheAss 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

What does he mean he can't apply the law "retroactively"? She is suing him now, in 2018, when the law applies.

Because the relationship they had (producer/actress) wasn't one of the covered relationships when it allegedly occurred (pre-2018). You can't retroactively make something illegal.

0
0

[–] tonberry2 ago 

Thanks for clearing that up. I think her problem was that she sued under the new law, she probably would have had a case if she just did a standard sexual harassment and defamation suit.

0
2

[–] FreeinTX 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Ex post facto. If I do something legal today, and tomorrow the law changes, you can't hold me accountable the following day for breaking that law.

0
1

[–] PewterKey 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Say a law is passed to make posting on voat illegal. It would only apply to future posts, because it is an insane burden to expect any member of society to respect both the current laws of the country and the hypothetical future laws.

This is why full auto guns still exist in private hands, they were grandfathered in. They were legal and thus stay legal. Just like Ms. Judd's relationship was legal and now stays legal. Also who becomes the criminal in a mutual relationship is highly questionable. Weinstein could be sueing Judd with just one switch of the legal lettering. Or both could be at fault to a 3rd party.

3
0

[–] BlackGrapeDrank 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

such a jew rule.