Kesha’s Rape and Abuse Claims Dismissed • Page 2

Yikes, that's disappointing on multiple levels.

 

The comments I've seen all over social media regarding this are disgusting. No, just because her claims were dismissed it doesn't mean she was "a girl crying wolf".

 

That's awful. Not much else to say about this.

 

Curious where I can find more information about his prior lawsuits? So far I haven't been able to turn up any results.

 

My heart sank when I read about this the other day.

This is just so damn upsetting on so many levels

 

Why Music Producer Dr. Luke Sues People Who Claim He Copies Songs (Analysis)

There's also a big section about him in Butch Walker's memoir and how he (allegedly, I guess) stole the Avril Lavigne song "Girlfriend" and put his name on it. Butch doesn't name names to avoid defamation claims, but it's obvious who he's talking about, and the interactions he describes with Luke are pretty eye-opening about what a bottom-feeding leech that guy is.

This is also a decent rundown of a bunch of the artists who have supposedly had spats with Luke--not just for plagiarism, but for various other issues: Artists who've had drama with Dr. Luke

 

A judge has to be thorough when explaining a ruling and its underlying reasoning so that the appellate court has an adequate record to work with on review. Moreover, it's not simply a lack of evidence that this judge was faced with, but a lack of necessary allegations, and unfortunately, that's on Kesha. The arguments required to adequately plead sexual assault under existing law are different from the arguments required to adequately plead a hate crime, and when Kesha didn't satisfy the latter, the judge had to explain the lack of perfect overlap between the two doctrines (hence "not every rape is a hate crime"). This is why I dislike lay reporting about legal proceedings -- it usually doesn't provide any context and stokes outrage based on incomplete understandings.

Our laws protecting victims may be terribly inadequate, but it's horrendously unfair to throw the judge (and system/people working within it as a whole) under the bus on this one. Blame the legislators. Judges can't rewrite the law on a case-by-case basis. They can only apply the law as it's been written and interpreted by binding authorities. Kesha's claims got thrown out because they didn't meet basic substantive legal requirements. If you want to argue some of those requirements are bullshit, you'll find plenty of people who agree with you, but you're letting your outrage get the best of you when you paint with as broad a brush as you are.

 

Awesome, thanks. Didn't know this stuff existed, interested to delve in and find out more about it.

 

It's not career suicide. Look at all of the high profile celebs that pose for Terry Richardson's pictures after the allegations against him.

 

If it were just one thing, I'd feel more inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but he's constantly coming under fire for doing bad shit. I feel like you can only sweep so many of these things under the rug before they start looking like undeniable truth.

 

His history is what makes this whole story pull at the heart strings even more with the subjective outlook being overwhelmingly in favor of Kesha. Even if Dr Luke is scum, he has a right to a defamation lawsuit if he is being falsely accused of rape and truth be told, even with the case being thrown, he still has to prove that there was clear intent for defamation, which is not easy to do unless Kesha retracts. The public stigma of the allegation won't go away.
The legal court system definitely has flaws, such as the Justice Department being unwilling to bring charges against Hillary Clinton because they are afraid they would lose which doesn't make sense if there is tangible evidence to bring into court. "We have evidence, we just don't feel it's strong enough to guarantee a win, so why bother." Is the wrong mentality of the justice system. That's slightly off topic, but echo's the flaws our court system has. From what I gathered Dr. Luke hasn't sued anyone into silence, which I could be wrong about, but he has counter sued individuals who accused him of plagiarism. Of which I believe all cases were settled with agreements of there being no plagiarism. Although, artists refusing to work with him again paints a very strong picture into his character.

 

True, but allegations of rape are in a totally different camp than rumors and gossip surrounding what appears to be typical (read: cutthroat) industry moves (not in all cases, but some.) It's not like people disowned Pharrell after the "Blurred Lines" incident, and he was actually proven guilty of that. The world of pop music plagiarizes itself constantly, I mean Train copied themselves with the hooks on "Drive By" and "50 Ways to Say Goodbye" but no one seemed to bat an eye at it. It just seems to get piled on in this regard, and I feel like the question we have to ask ourselves is if the verdicts of the legal system we rely on aren't satisfactory to quell disputes, is the internet lynch mob mentality really the correct alternative?

 

When there is an agreement of there being no plagiarism, that is absolutely the result of someone being sued into silence. Dr. Luke has an estimated net worth of $100 million. Some of the musicians he's been accused of stealing from have a tiny, tiny fraction of that. Even if he did steal a song bar for bar, he could achieve a settlement by using his considerable financial means to create an ultimatum for his victim: settle and state publicly that I didn't steal your song, or be left penniless by a lawsuit. Lose the suit, your life is ruined; try to risk fighting the suit, potentially be more ruined by what it costs to pay a lawyer and prepare a defense. There is literally not a winning solution in the cases where he has sued people for defamation, and a justice system that favors rich goons that heavily is not a system that promotes justice.

Also, he has absolutely sued people for accusing him of plagiarizing, even if he didn't sue them first.

I mean, the plagiarism issues speak to character and to trustworthiness. There's a difference between songs that sound similar and songs that are carbon copies of one another. The accusations against Dr. Luke usually fall into the latter category. If it happened just once, sure, coincidence. But it's happened numerous times, and I trust Butch Walker enough to know he wouldn't make up a story about his song being stolen out from under him. I have literally no reason to give Dr. Luke the benefit of the doubt on this subject, and if he's not going to face legal consequences for his plagiarism, an internet lynch mob will have to do.

As for allegations of rape being in an entirely different camp, I disagree. One is obviously much more serious and much more damaging than the other, but I think his tendency to sue people into silence shows a man who thinks he owns the world and can do with it as he pleases. One of the quotes in that second article:
"He checks all of his artists. He just curses them out. He thinks he owns them because he made them." There's also plenty of evidence that he's a misogynist and creates toxic working environments. Just read about how he body shamed Charlie XCX or how Kelly Clarkson felt blackmailed by her label because they made her go into a studio to record with him. Dude is a monster and that's a well-documented fact.

 

Suing someone to keep them quiet over songwriting credits is absolutely not the same thing as or even remotely comparable to raping a woman in any regard.

 

Absolutely not what I meant to say. I don't think they're the same. I merely believe that he is someone who has shown himself to be okay with hurting people, okay with lying about his victims, and okay with being vengeful when something doesn't go his way. If what I said implied that rape and plagiarism are the same, I apologize, because that was not my intent.

 

100% correct on both accounts. Also (granted I only skimmed the ruling), I'm fairly sure the claims were dismissed with leave to amend? So it's not like Kesha won't have the ability to litigate these claims eventually...her lawyers just need to write a better complaint than can survive a 12(b)(6) (or whatever the new york state equivalent rule is).

 

"New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich also rejected Kesha's request to amend her complaint, finding that 'there is nothing in the record from which the court can determine whether the amendment would be meritorious.'"

 

I know what you're saying but it's the same throughout western society, judges can only take into account 'relevant' prior history. It's fair to say the previous instances of Dr Luke using lawsuits to silence victims is relevant, but from a legal system standpoint it's not.
It's like someone being busted with illegal firearms who has a rap sheet for traffic offences in the eyes of the court.
And that's the same in the vast majority of western legal systems, not just the USA.

 

Agree with everything DandonTRJ said. I read the Pitchfork article but not the full 28 page decision. Two quotes pulled are really getting most attention. First, "Her claims of insults about her value as an artist, her looks, and her weight are insufficient to constitute extreme, outrageous conduct intolerable in civilized society." So here, Kesha is suing Luke for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a civil tort for money. In order to prevail on this tort, the judge points out that the conduct must be extreme and outrageous, which can be described something "beyond all possible bounds of decency, regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." This clearly is meant to be a very high standard, for good reason. Most people think there are way too many lawsuits as it is, well the court doesn't want even more over "hurt feelings" or name calling. Calling someone ugly, fat, stupid, a shitty artist, etc. is not enough. This is actually a good thing, if that was the case a ton of people on just this site could be sued for it. However, say a person knows someone has an eating disorder/mental illness/weak state of mind and proceeds to call her fat and ugly then that might satisfy the extreme conduct standard. So if that is "all" Luke did then it wouldn't be enough to reach the standard, it would be more than enough for him to be a really shitty person. Again, I havent read everything so im not making any judgement either way.

The other quote, "Every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime" also sticks out. While it looks harsh i think most people on here would agree with it (like rape occurring with a "friend" or guys not even thinking what they are doing is rape). All rapist are bad people, but I doubt most of them hate women in general. Intent matters in a hate crime. If you kill a black guy because he slept with your wife then it would be murder. If you kill a black guy because you hate black people then you'd go to jail for longer for that murder under a hate crime. So Kesha would have to show that Luke's intent for rape. Hate crimes are controversial, "every rape is a hate crime" seems pretty relevant.

There's a lot more to this, including prior evidence, but im going to bed. The jurisdiction thing is what isnt making sense to me, I feel like either the judge is fucking up or kesha's lawyers fucked up and i'd like to look into that more tomorrow or ask smart people what the hell is going on there. to be clear, im not sticking up for Dr Luke in anyway, even under the best case scenario that he didn't rape Kesha he still seems like a very shitty person. Oh, and to Craig Manning saying that most people who work in the judicial system are pieces of shit just screams ignorance and will cause a lot of people to take what you say less serious.

 

That's a very vague understanding of how settlements work. Almost all cases settle before going to court as legal costs are insane and the time frame of having your case heard is a lengthy process. The 2010 West Virginia mine collapse finally handed out punishment this week in a slam dunk case. 6 years for due process. Which will be appealed and lengthening the process, despite the guilty verdict in December. Compare that to Tracy Morgan and Walmart settling in only 1 years time.

Despite personal feelings you have against Dr. Luke, he has a right to protect his reputation. Being convicted of plagiarism would definitely damage him. Now I haven't looked into the settlements, but I'd imagine that those that accused him and settled profited in some way. It's possible that they came to an agreement to be compensated for the work without it being considered plagiarism. win/win. Dr. Luke being valued at $100 million dollars really isn't that much when dealing with multi million dollar allegations. Lawyers rarely take cases that they don't think have a legitimate chance of profiting off of. Lawyers would take the cases pro bono and take their cut from the settlement. Also settlement isn't a way of silencing individuals as much as it is a way of resolving an issue. The issue at hand being resolved is something that won't warrant further discussion, so in that sense, yes, they are silenced by coming to an agreement. But not forcibly so. Tom Petty and Sam Smith for example, only every time I hear "stay with me" I hear "Stand by me" by Ben E. King. The settlement only proves that the plagiarism accusation had some merit. Dr. Luke's aggressive legal approach could also be to avoid a Bittersweet Symphony style lawsuit.

Regardless of all that though, I'd say the damage has been done and self inflicted. Dr. Luke has garnered a negative reputation for himself from not only the Kesha case but multiple settlements and accusations.

On a side note to all of this, is there an actual link to the Sony contract? Because once that's honored I don't see Dr. Luke receiving much work as he must be near to being completely blackballed in the business.

 

So I'm posting this because I think it's the context a lot of us are holding closely. I'm pretty unsure though, so...have at it and/or me:

I think the problem most of us (obviously correct me if I'm wrong, please) have with the statement, "every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime," (beside the literal meaning of it being "no rape is a gender-related hate crime," and all subsequent statements that assume this statement rather than critiquing it) is that (again, personally) I would much rather worry that this person has been raped and is dealing with shit that I honestly can't even begin to describe emotionally and have something come to light that affects the assaulted's statement than to say to that person: "Prove it."

That aside, there are aspects of this country's judicial system that I abhor; being forced into a position to say, "maybe she's innocent of falsely claiming rape" to hold the litigal high-ground is one of them. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a fantastic concept...literally. I understand that we are forced to navigate the judicial system as it is, but I think a lot of discussions merit an environment free from the bounds of an (to be polite) antiquated framework.

So I guess I would just challenge you to compare and contrast what you know would fly in a courtroom with some of the things people have posted here? I don't know you at all, but one of the unequivocalities of humanity is the possibility of dehumanisation, and it's something you can't really write laws about because it's not really, viscerally describable. It's a forced lessening of self [read akin: the definition of assault]. The unfortunate reality is that the sum of every claim of rape made through an official and legally defensible channel, pursued to the length and breadth of its warrant does not at all reflect the violence afflicted upon the victims, whether vocal or voiceless.

That's why (I think) people are here on this site saying things that they think no one wants to hear (or maybe that they wish people would want to hear) because their experience has told them so.

 

It was a stupid thing for me to say. I was pissed off and being hyperbolic. I apologize if I offended anyone.

I think I keep coming back to the bolded as a major problem here. The syntax of her words, as you said, means "no rape is a gender-related hate crime." I doubt that was her intent, but clarity of language is important, and you'd think a judge of all people would recognize that. Her carelessness in wording is something I can see hurting a lot of people who have been raped and being counterproductive in the fight to prevent sexual assault and encourage victims to come forward.

 

The vibe I get is that when the contract was signed (which I believe was in NY) it stipulated that any contract disputes must be settled where the contract was signed. The move for a change of venue was a crafty and smart legal move on his team's part, especially due to the statue of limitations regarding assault and the fact that those alleged instances happened in CA and not NY. From a legal standpoint it sounds like her lawyers kind of dropped the ball, but I can't say with 100% certainty without actually looking at the contract itself.

 

That makes sense, and I honestly had no idea he'd had so many legal situations before this happened. I'm glad the little guys received any kind of compensation at all for the use of their work, although it was done in a shitty and somewhat roustabout way. I think as much as it speaks to his character that these prior lawsuits exist, surely it says something that his list of clients are all MASSIVE stars in the pop realm thanks to the work he helped them create doesn't it? It's easy to bite the hand that feeds once you're famous thanks to said hand. It just baffles me how to process the information that:

A: this dude is a complete monster creating toxic work environments and
B: this dude still has artists wanting to work with him because even if he is a monster, he's a hit-making monster that has helped craft the careers of some of the biggest pop stars in the world.

Sometimes it makes me wonder how it would read if an NFL player went on ESPN and said "My coach was mean to me, he called me names and said I needed to lose weight or I wouldn't be good enough to make it in the NFL" I feel like the world would respond "Well...yeah he's your coach. Their job is to motivate you."

Maybe that transcends differently between sports and music? Who knows.

 

I think it's different between sports and music, surely. I've never responded well to that kind of instruction, as a musician who pursued classical training for a long time, so I definitely think there's a disconnect. I also think there would be a perceived difference between a male coach "being mean" to a male player in the NFL and a male coach demeaning and body shaming a female player in the WNBA.

I also think it's telling that, while artists still want to work with him, he doesn't have the lifetime partners that some professional songwriters do. A lot of the people who have cut his biggest hits have stopped working with him. He's basically responsible for Kelly Clarkson transcending the American Idol image and becoming a huge pop star, but she hasn't worked with him in half a decade and went on record saying he wasn't a good person. Avril Lavigne hasn't worked with him in years. Kesha obviously is fighting incredibly hard to escape him and he wrote her breakout hit. I understand why someone might work with him seeking success because of his track record, but when your biggest collaborators don't want to work with you anymore despite the fame and money you brought their way, that's a pretty clear sign that something is wrong.