Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Emma Jane's avatar

I'm really glad you have chosen to weigh in on this. I've followed this page religiously since it started as a) I have been on the receiving end of this behaviour through the media industry and b) I am a lawyer who experienced severe harassment before the #MeToo era (which inadvertently resulted in me being put off practising within the profession at age 20). I applaud the bravery of those who have come forward. Especially the survivors who have been named and had to deal with keyboard warriors questioning their story, truth and been accused of "being on a witch hunt".

One thing I have been grappling with (and would love to hear some thoughts on) is about accountability for the actions of others. Some of the posts on BTGC have centred on the business partners/ associates of perpetrators- and I am constantly debating with myself the level of responsibility and accountability third parties should have in these circumstances. Are we responsible for the actions of others? In what cases should we be? Where's the line? I think it's subjective/ case by case basis. Thoughts? I mull this over, as when I look back at my experiences in media, I feel like I was wilfully blind to some of the going ons'- particularly involving young, vulnerable members of staff. Everything was written off as being "part of the culture", and I wish I did more in protecting others and trusted my gut. Honestly, even 5 years ago- the ego fuelled, power tripping, party culture was, just normalised. Almost part of the job description if you wanted success. It makes me feel ill.

Sorry that this is so long- but final point. From reading that "legal letter" a few times, I am utterly dumbfounded at what exactly they thought the letter would achieve from this. My theory is that the Party (X) is currently involved in ongoing legal proceedings, and perhaps has interim name suppression. It might explain why they believe that defences of truth or honest opinion wouldn't stand (unless they are just idiots that are bluffing).

Seeing how the Harmful Digital Communications Act works in this context would be incredibly interesting. This legislation has so far been clogged up by disgruntled influencers that don't seem to have a shred of accountability for their online presence- rather than protecting the vulnerable from very real digital crimes and harm. Technology is so far ahead of our legal system, and I hope with every fibre of my being that perpetrators with deep pockets aren't prioritised over victims- many of which, at the time, didn't feel they could speak up or get help.

Shit that was long. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk haha. It feels slightly freeing to talk about issues that grapple at my heart strings every day. Em xx

Expand full comment
Plague Craig's avatar

Article one (a), part 1, verse i: herewith and hereafter it's well known that none (0) people are as impressive as they think whence pretending to write like a lawyer

Expand full comment
68 more comments...

No posts