10-30-2018, 05:39 AM
The Rush case is different. He is suing the newspaper for defamation. This is not only for personal reputation, but also loss of work. I don't think the actress made a formal complaint.
The consequences of Rush's action is that everything has to be aired. He has to be able to prove that he has been defamed, therefore his story, her story and everyone else's who was involved in that production.
From the reports, there is a massive defense of Rush, and the actress has been saying that she was intimidated by who he is - and she has little support from the rest of the people involved in the show. It seems to be along typical lines - someone with power and someone with none. There is also a blurring of generations and what is and isn't acceptable. Two worlds colliding.
Back to the original question - who is to be believed? In many cases, both would have elements that are to be believed, That doesn't make them both right.
The consequences of Rush's action is that everything has to be aired. He has to be able to prove that he has been defamed, therefore his story, her story and everyone else's who was involved in that production.
From the reports, there is a massive defense of Rush, and the actress has been saying that she was intimidated by who he is - and she has little support from the rest of the people involved in the show. It seems to be along typical lines - someone with power and someone with none. There is also a blurring of generations and what is and isn't acceptable. Two worlds colliding.
Back to the original question - who is to be believed? In many cases, both would have elements that are to be believed, That doesn't make them both right.