I can see the witch hunts are only beginning on this sexual harrassment stuff from even 30 years ago. Its just designed to ruin peoples' lives and a way to get even.

If its that much of a nightmare, why not file charges right away or just forget about it and move on.

Obviously when a charge is not filed immediately, the victim has made the decision that the advantages of NOT filing a charge outweigh the benefits of filing the charge. I would say the statute of limitations on filing should be very small, like 2 weeks. Plus, the actual offenses need to be significant, like rape or some sort of physical danger. Getting patted on the butt should NOT qualify for 'sexual harrassment". Any normal person can easily reject this sort of behavior quite easily and permanently by a nicely put, but firm, rebuttal.

It is particularly entertaining to look at the account of a few of them, which in general summarize "he raped me after I followed him up to his hotel room in the middle of the night for a [casting couch] 'meeting'." And 2 months later, it happens again when they invited him in for a night cap to their own apartment. (or similar or variation of that account). Really?

Most women manage to go through life without following some old dude up to his hotel room in the middle of the night, and certainly don't subsequently invite him into their apartment later if they didn't like the outcome of the first encounter.

I have no doubt the guy is pond scum and a rapist and probably guilty of many of the accusations... but I'm equally distressed by how disgustingly low the morality of these people obviously is (victims and offender). If they kept to themselves, well then maybe, but they don't - they routinely declare conservatives to practically be the anti-christ.

For someone not in the public eye, the same as for forcible rape. For someone in the public eye, and especially one who put himself there by playing up to women's identity politics? Indefinite.

Yeah. You gotta love it.

That's one of the huge problems with sexual harassment - it is so amorphous.

All crimes should be treated equally with a reasonable length of statute of limitations, with the exception of murder. And, each crime should be defined BEFORE the event (as it is in on-sex related cases) because "sexual harassment" means different things to different people.

if convicted...castrate them...then we can talk about further action...

For sexual harassment I agree, however I think statute of limitations should be removed for rape. Many suffer from PTSD after rape and it may be some time before they are in a mental state to file charges.

I can't believe I am saying this but I do agree that Prostitution should be legal if that's what floats your boat. Prostitution comes in so many forms other than simple street corner sex and I have seen many woman attempting to blow themselves to the top in the workplace. It has been going on since the very beginning.

I meant to add that very paragraph. Maybe, since so many in Hollywood claim to be liberals/socialists and only about 1 per cent of them can actually make a living in the trade, we stop giving individuals the multi-million dollar paydays, but rather "re-distribute the wealth" (maybe via membership in SAG) Such that all actors can make a living (not to exceed the median income of regular people). If the promise of being a "star" was not so lucrative the various prostitutes would be less willing to sell themselves for stardom (on the other hand, as a libertarian, why is prostitution illegal?).

"harassment" is not a crime. Assault, battery, rape, sodomy etc. are crimes. It seems showing interest in someone is now considered harassment. If party A is interested in Party B and they convey that interest and Party B TELLS party A they do not reciprocate that interest that should end it. Too often -- esp. in the workplace -- Party B does not clearly state "thanks, but no thanks" so party A continues to show interest. Then, much later, formal charges are brought. Attempting to prostitute someone IS a crime and should be immediately reported (e.g. movie producer X promises to make Actore Q a statr if s/he will only perform some physical act upon or at the direction of Movie mogul X that is a crime -- though a reasonable "statute of limitation " should exist (what is the statute of limiation for pimping?))

As a doc, I can tell you that this is a nightmare. I would give them 7 years. That's reasonable.

Unfortunately, the best advice is to never be alone with any child, never touch or hug a child and have total recording of any space you may be in.

My husband provides music lessons for children in our home. Back when he first started, I insisted that HE insist that each child under 18 MUST be accompanied by a parent (no drop-offs). Girl, boy, makes no difference. No parent, no lesson, plus I greet students at the door now, so they know I am here. Some things are so horrible (including unfounded accusations) it is worth making every effort to avoid them happening.

WRT the original question: I am not sure what good it does to make accusations so many years after the fact, especially if naming names. Someone has to have courage to bring it up (AND it needs to be attended to at the time) when it happens. I suppose now (I hope) that it has come to light, further accusations will either be unnecessary, or at least if necessary, effective.

How about we charge all these aspiring actresses who Weinstein allegedly sexually assaulted but also gave them movie parts with Prostitution. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out these gals shut up for long periods of time because they got something of value in trade.

Yes, they do. As a second grade teacher, I had to be careful. Even giving a hug to a child, which so many needed, had guide lines. Of course the guide lines were just common sense, but having to be told how to give a hug is a sign of the times.

Teachers bear an inordinate risk. The glass door was a prudent idea. Its a shame when one risks job lose or worse when they are only trying to comfort a distressed child.

I agree. Her name is Twana Brawley. She should have been prosecuted for what she did when she accused four white males of rape. She was trying to cover herself from being punished for staying out late or something like that. Al Sharpton was one of the first to get on the rape band wagon. It was terrible how at first everyone believed her. The Duke lacrosse team comes to mind.
My husband was an elementary school principal. One day the custodians came with a new door for office. It was solid wood. He made them take it away and order one with a very large glass panel. I wonder why!

You have me dino thinking of Gloria Girl Obamanations that worked to shoo fly Herman Cane and the Evil Hag's trotted out bimbo eruptions that failed to so much as budge The Donald.

I'm remembering Anita Hill coming forth during Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings or the eggon Al Sharpton's face when Twana (can't remember last name) accusations proved bogus. Problem is the stigma remains in many people's minds even when proven false and many years later muck-rakers dig them up at crucial times to sway public opinion when there is not time to adequately refute them.

AND... news media moguls, hollywood creatures and all government workers...
Anyone else...it must be reported immeaditly with proof and except for rape or injury it would only carry a fine, order to get help, probation and a permanent mark on one's record with any extenuating circumstances which could be re-visited at any time when evidence can be.presented.

PLUSSSSSSSSSS....Jail time for anyone falsely reporting an offense.

Not in the case of politicians. ;^)