Twentieth Century Fox was just days away from locking picture on “The Predator” when an urgent note came in: Delete the scene featuring ____ ____ ____.
____, 47, didn’t have a big role in his longtime friend Shane Black’s reboot of the sci-fi thriller — just a three-page scene shared with actress Olivia Munn.
But last month, Munn learned that ____ is a registered sex offender who pleaded guilty in 2010 after facing allegations that he attempted to lure a 14-year-old female into a sexual relationship via the internet. When Munn shared the information with Fox on Aug. 15, studio executives quickly decided to excise him from the movie. Full Article
More political correctness and hypocrisy from Hollywood, I wonder what’s in her closet or toy box?.
For those with social media,mainly Instagram, please flood Olivia Mann with stats and info- I know a lot you don’t have it, but maybe your family can do it for you. There some people there defending the man she got fired, and while she may not read them herself there are a lot of comments so people are reading them!
Many years ago, I had the unfortunate experience of coming across Amy Phenix. My experience is that she will put her mechanical Static-99R “science” before taking a humanistic approach to “evaluating” people. It’s sad that Phenix still has a platform. My hunch is that Phenix is being propped by government funding enabled by corruption. Also, why does Phenix believe that sex offenders are obligated to advertise their registrant status to all “they’re working with?”
“People who aren’t experienced in risk assessment find out about these things and get upset. It’s human nature,” added Amy Phenix, a forensic psychologist. “It’s understandable that people would be concerned and not trust the person that they’re working with because that person wasn’t open about the situation. When you inform people, you can educate people — and oftentimes, when people have a better understanding of what they’re dealing with, it’s not so scary.”
1. Firstly, Phenix continues to push her “risk assessments” even many years later. For those who are unaware, Phenix is a co-developer to Karl Hanson and his Static-99R. Phenix is routinely cited in non-transparent “studies,” pushing the Static-99R, when said studies are riddled with conflicts of interests.
2. Secondly, why does Phenix imply that RSO’s are supposed to advertise to everyone who “they’re working with” that one is a registered sex offender, even many years after conviction? Advertising that you’re a registered sex offender only perpetuates the unjust label itself. Sex offenders who are not incarcerated — and who are not on parole or probation — have paid their punishment. When we are done with punishment, then it’s time to move on with life. Openly ‘advertising’ that we’re sex offenders not only validates the government’s oppression; but it also generally leads to awkward social scenarios and self-ostracization. It’s like shooting yourself in the foot. Sure there might be appropriate scenarios of saying that you’re a registered sex offender (i.e. in a civil rights meeting, perhaps in a protest, perhaps in a 12-step recovery program, counseling, or if you are getting involved in a serious relationship with another person). But in general, Phenix’s “advice” as an “expert” will lead a person to unemployment and further ostracization. This is terrible advice by a so-called “psychologist” / “doctor.”
Not to mention, disclosing that you are a registered sex offender with those who you are “working with” is no where specified in state or federal law. In fact, discrimination based on your registrant status, as it relates to employment, is technically barred by state law. This declaration by Amy Phenix is exactly representative of the Static-99R developers’ disregard for law and humanity in general. (BTW, the “presentation” by Phenix to why the Static-99R is “science” — of which I had to sit through a few years ago — was a complete joke. She made the same argument that the Scam-99R is akin to automobile insurance risk assessments.)
This incident should be another piece of evidence to Colorado Judge Matsch’s decision that the public has made the registry punitive.
This man paid his dues, but is on the registry. That’s how Munn can discover more about him. So now this man cannot hold a job that he has earned solely because he’s on the registry AFTER paying his debt to society.
Every other criminal is okay to be on set, but not a registered sex offender. This is proof of the registry being an accomplice to ostracizing an individual solely due to the registry.
Olivia Munn continues getting herself into more trouble:
This particular train of thought will end up doing far more damage to her career than she is aware of yet:
She added: “When you have somebody on a big screen, no matter how small – we’ve all done little parts in movies – that little grain of fame is just enough to reach out and influence somebody who is impressionable and if you have somebody that has a history of using that to abuse children, that’s not OK in my book. And I do believe people deserve second chances, but I do have a hard line when it comes to people who hurt children or animals. You deserve to go make money, but not alongside me in a film. You can go work in a lot of other places or like make an Etsy store or something.”
In time she will say the wrong thing about someone and receive a hard lesson on the importance of facts. If she pushes too far there could be a slander and/or libel suit in her future.
The good thing is that at least there are people actually *defending* RSOs and the actor on Twitter. Not most, but some. On average, it looks like MAYBE 25% of people are defending the actor, depending on the OP posting original source. Those in support emphasize that the actor had already paid for his crime, that it’s been about eight years since, no other offense since, and the fact that how is he supposed to make a living??
I generally identify myself as a Democrat; but it’s incredibly disheartening when these Hollywood types use the #MeToo movement and conflate it so that it trumps rehabilitation and reintegration. It’s also a bit annoying in how Olivia Munn works hard to portray herself as “well spoken” in her interview (something a vast majority seem to share) when she says that she has a “hard line when it comes to people who hurt children or animals.” Yet to me, Munn’s interview came off as largely shallow. Munn speaks in the present tense — as if the actor is *currently* hurting children or animals. What the actor did was eight years ago! He has since long-ago paid in terms of a conviction and sentence.
At least Munn’s other castmates shunned her — which most seem to also be upset about. But yet, imagine having spent many hours “on set,” only to have your efforts grossly overshadowed by the “main star” of the film. I feel that Munn putting the actor “on blast” had nothing to do with #MeToo — and more about Olivia Munn wanting more attention and publicity for taking a “higher” and more “noble” cause.
But again, at least the actor seems to have his share of supporters (including most of the cast itself).
In the end, do you all feel that these types of scandals help or hurt our cause? On one hand, I feel that they might help because it leads people to discuss an issue — the labeling of “sex offenders” — otherwise swept under the rug. On the other hand, I feel that these discussions hurt because not only is the actor unemployable; but movie and television studios will no longer “take a chance” on employing a person labeled as a sex offender. This type of attention also seems to bring out and reignite more anger and animosity against labeled sex offenders in general.
I’m thinking they tend to hurt more? Which is why I am getting tired of the mainstream media (MSM) and Hollywood spin. It’s almost like the MSM and Hollywood impose on us what to think, instead of letting us think for our own.
They are not enforceable, like the speed laws are really not enforceable if enough people agree to break them . Sure, a few can get tickets for going way over the speed limits on freeways, but it has to be really fast, and that has almost no impact on the general flow of traffic. 85 mph seems to be the norm in a 65 zone here. The government is the people whether they admit it or not, defined by their actions and non actions. They like registries, even though most don’t use them, because everyone else likes them, or so they think, and those who don’t like them must be pedophiles or hate children.
The culture can be changed through education and changing the dialogue. That’s just my idea, for what it’s worth. Maybe that happens in the court, but it can happen anywhere and needs to happen everywhere to be effective and lasting. I was just thinking how few people smoke anymore. People used to view it as normal, sexy, or at worst an almost insurmountable addiction most people can’t fight. Smoking didn’t even need to be made completely illegal, just undesirable and a threat. That’s what needs to happen to make registration laws undesirable and a threat. How?