 |
 |
 |
05-02-2006, 06:27 PM
|
#1 |
|
|
ANALYZING THE ALLEGED MID OHIO ASSAULT
 Last December a column by Ronee Garcia Bourgeois on the website Buzzscope.com incited a wildfire of rumor and accusations among part of the comics blogosphere concerning an alleged sexual assault that occurred at Mid Ohio Con last November. It took until April for the first name and specifics to emerge from the incident when aspiring comics artist Taki Soma stepped forward with her version of events in a subsequent Buzzscope entry. Among the specifics was the announcement of the Friends of Lulu Empowerment Fund, which was being set up to help Soma retain legal counsel to bring civil charges against her alleged attacker. Yesterday, The Comics Journal published an expose of the incident that named CBLDF Executive Director Charles Brownstein as the alleged aggressor, but their report also contained police statements suggesting that this may not have been a case of assault at all. So what really happened?While it seems that no one can definitively answer that question, Newsarama has pieced together the statements made by Soma online, as well as evidence discovered by The Comics Journal, and a statement from Brownstein that was issued late yesterday to Newsarama and other inquiring news outlets in order to try to make sense of what is being claimed, suggested, or denied. A redacted police report filed on the morning of November 26, 2005 places an incident of "sexual imposition" – "molesting" occurring at 3:00 AM that morning. In her statement to Buzzscope, Taki Soma says: I was invited down to the pool in the hotel I was staying at by friends but I turned the invitation down per I didn't have a bathing suit with me, but after some coaxing, it was decided that it was okay to go in my clothes – But instead of swimming, there was an attached hot tub sectioned off in the pool, where everything is wide open and we all gravitated towards the hot tub to sit and just talk about comics and movies, etc.The Comics Journal reports that Ken Lillie-Paetz, Soma's witness to the incident, said, "He was not letting her go and I had to pull his fingers back from her shirt without losing her shirt and without breaking his fingers. I had to kind of guess at how far I could pull his fingers back without breaking them." The Journal continues: "Asked if an attempt was made to reason with Brownstein, Lillie-Paetz said, 'He was totally out of it.' While Brownstein does not dispute that he was in a hot tub at 3:00 AM with Soma and Lillie-Paetz, his statement is in disagreement with Soma's version of events. He writes, "What happened in Ohio started when, after a party on the evening in question, Taki invited me to accompany her and Ken Lillie-Paetz back to her hotel room. This wasn't unusual – I'd known both of them for more than a year and regarded them as friends. In her room, Taki served more drinks, and suggested we go down to the pool. In the pool, everyone was intoxicated and rowdy. At one point, very late in the evening, I was sitting in the Jacuzzi with her and Ken, and I feigned to lift up her shirt. It was a stupid, drunken prank, of which I'm ashamed. It was something I'd never done before, nor anything I'd do since. I did not, at any point, grab, fondle, or expose her breast, nor was that ever my intention." Shortly following the incident, Soma spoke to police officers who took her statement, but, as reported in the Journal, did not question either Lillie-Paetz or Brownstein, and did not make any arrest. However, statements Columbus police officers gave to The Comics Journal seem to align more closely with Brownstein's version of events than Soma's. The Journal reports, "The account recorded that night by police described the 'sexual imposition' as an 'attempted fondling.'" It begs the question, if Soma's public allegation that she was groped by Brownstein was told to police, why would their statement to the Journal cite only an "attempted fondling?" After her description of the actions Brownstein committed against her, Soma's public statement expresses frustration about her inability to find proper legal recourse. She writes, "This is where it gets complicated; the incident happened in Ohio, I'm in Minnesota, my witness, Ken is in Canada and the individual in question is in yet another state – these factors have made it very difficult for me to obtain legal representation or to seek legal advice. I have made countless phone calls, researched, and all I get is the run around and speculation as to what to do. Every single attorney I spoke with, civil, pro-bono, even the D.A.'s office in Ohio were unsure of how to advise me confidently – I've also contacted various organizations, including those who give support to sexual violence victims, artists in need of legal advice, and even their contact attorneys – and still, no solid legal advice." However, revelations made to The Comics Journal paint a more complicated picture. The Journal reports, "Columbus Special Victims Unit Detective Eric Wooten … had been more closely connected to the molestation case than previous sources at the police department. The information Wooten provided solved the mystery of why the case had been closed and no witness reported, but raised an even bigger mystery. According to the un-redacted report, at the end of Soma's account of the incident to police, her last words were that she did not want to pursue criminal charges. To police, that meant the investigation was over. There was no need to talk to a witness, no need to talk to the accused." The Journal continues: "Was it possible that Soma was so drunk herself that she didn't remember telling police she didn't want to press charges that night? According to Wooten, 'If she was in that condition, it would've been noted in the report and we probably wouldn't even have interviewed her at that time.'" The Journal also observes, "Of course, as the victim of an alleged crime, Soma shouldn't be the one in need of legal counsel." Soma's public statement concludes with an imploring cry of frustration. She writes, "I felt overwhelmed and powerless… how can I not have any answers? - I've been told to move on, I wasn't raped, it's no big deal by a few… but it is a big deal, to me. I understand fully what occurred, and I'm not here to say that my experience was as horrendous as rape cases are, but I was nonetheless wronged. I also know that my incident was not an isolated case by this person, but repeated behavior that has been escalating each time. I wouldn't forgive myself if I remained silent and just hoped it wouldn't happen again to someone else. "I am still searching for legal advice and I'm finding tremendous support from Friends of Lulu and I would love to be involved in their mission. I don't want another victim to ever have to face what I am facing. It is my hope that through greater awareness that people will be able to find the resources, answers, confidence and support if and when they ever need it. " Nowhere in Soma's April narrative is the fact reported by the Journal and Lying in the Gutters that she brought Brownstein's actions against her to the attention of the CBLDF Board of Directors who conducted a formal investigation of the matter. The CBLDF issued the following statement when asked by Newsarama to confirm whether Soma's allegations were brought to them: "Certain allegations were brought to the Fund's attention. The Board of Directors has been dealing with the issue since the day after the incident, and has taken the matter very seriously. The Board retained an outside investigator to conduct a thorough independent investigation, which has concluded. Appropriate actions have been taken based on the results of the investigation, but to protect the privacy rights of all the parties involved we cannot comment further." -- Chris Staros, President & Louise Nemschoff, Secretary, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund Newsarama contacted Staros to further clarify points raised by the CBLDF statement, firstly, given that there have been no announcements of personnel changes, could it safely be assumed that the independent investigation exonerated Charles Brownstein from the specific allegations made against him by Taki Soma? “While we cannot get into the specifics of the investigation, on receiving the independent investigator's report and recommendations it became apparent to the Board that appropriate internal actions would be sufficient to work through this regrettable incident,” Staros told Newsarama. “Employment law is very specific about privacy rights, and to protect the privacy rights of all the parties involved, we had to handle the matter in a strictly confidential manner. In any event, I will reiterate that we took the matter extremely seriously, were involved from the day after the incident, and when the independent investigator delivered her report to the CBLDF Board, we did everything to comply with all her recommendations.” Staros said that the investigation cost the Fund approximately $7,500, and the monies came from the CBLDF’s general operating fund, which is “comprised of donations from individuals and companies, as well as donations earned through premiums that we manufacture or are donated to us. Non-profit organizations routinely have operating expenses which are paid from these non-restricted revenue streams. So while this was an unfortunate expenditure, it was a necessary one, approved by the entire Board of Directors.” Asked if Staros felt that Board is liable for the actions of its executive director 24/7 during conventions, he replied: “Obviously, if we didn't believe that Charles' personal actions reflected upon the Fund, we would not have taken immediate action and conducted a thorough independent investigation. And while we are always concerned with the image that our employees project, legally speaking, what people do on their own time, after work hours, is, in most cases, a personal matter. It's definitely a complicated issue, and one that involves both legal and employee rights issues. This is why the Board and independent investigator spent so much time investigating and deliberating on the matter.” Newsarama also sought to clarify a claim that was made in the initial Buzzscope column, that is, that the CBLDF offered to make a donation in Soma’s name to a charity. It was implied by others that the offer was made to quiet Soma. Newsarama asked Staros: Did the Board, as it has been alleged, offer to pay a sum of money to Ms. Soma shortly after the incident? Staros: “Absolutely not. I was the board member Ms. Soma talked to after the incident, and in all of our extensive conversations, I never made such an offer. The confusion here may have come from the fact that, at one time, Charles personally offered (through Ken Lillie-Paetz) to make a donation to a charity of Ms. Soma's choice to demonstrate that he was willing to back up the sincerity of his personal apology with more than mere words. But this never had anything to do with the official response of the organization.” Finally, when asked if, in his estimation, this incident has had an effect on the reputation of the CBLDF, or Brownstein's ability to do his job, Staros answered: “We hope not. The mission of the Fund -- to protect the First Amendment rights of the comics community -- is ever paramount, as is Charles' dedication to the cause. In life, sometimes apologies need to be accepted, second chances need to be given, and people's lives, contributions, and worth need to be looked at as a whole. There are also practical limitations as to how much an organization can assert control over, or be responsible for, its employees on their own time. People who look for reasons to condemn the CBLDF may do so, but those who realize that a person made a mistake, feels terrible about it, and that both the organization and individual have taken the appropriate internal actions to correct the matter, will not hold it against us. Obviously, it may take time for Charles to restore his personal reputation, but professionally, we stand behind him.” Back to the statements, Brownstein's formal statement sheds further light on the investigation's timeline. He writes, "The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund handled the incident completely properly by taking Taki's complaint seriously, and promptly retaining a law firm specializing in such matters to conduct a thorough, impartial investigation. I participated fully with that investigation, which concluded at the end of February, a fact of which Taki was informed. " It is an open question as to whether Soma believes that the Fund’s undisclosed measures go far enough towards ensuring her goal that Brownstein will never repeat what happened to her with another woman. And because neither the fund nor Brownstein can publicly define exactly what these measures were, Soma, and the community at large, must trust that the Fund’s board of directors – Chris Staros, Paul Levitz, Steve Geppi, Neil Gaiman, Peter David, Joe Ferrara, Louise Nemschoff, Milton Griepp, and Greg Ketter – can be taken at their word that the investigator they hired and the measures she proscribed were appropriate towards achieving that goal. The apologetic tone of Brownstein's public statement, corroborated by statements Lillie-Paetz gave The Comics Journal, suggest that he has learned his lesson. Brownstein writes, "I feel terrible for hurting Taki's feelings. The following day, and on several occasions since, I apologized to Taki for my bad behavior. I also spoke with Ken at several points over the course of the weekend, to see if we could find a way to honorably set matters right. Unfortunately my sincere apologies have all been rejected. I continue to feel genuine regret that I hurt someone I regarded as a friend… "I hope that with the passage of time that Taki will accept my public apology, as I am sorry both to her and to the members of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, for this indiscretion." Whatever happened between Brownstein and Soma will likely remain a conflict of he said/she said assertions, but what has come in the wake of their incident has already had more far-reaching repercussions for the comics industry and the three major non-profit organizations that serve it. Putting things back into a timeline, while the CBLDF investigation was getting underway in early 2006, Bourgeois' first article on the matter, "What A Girl Wants: Well Grab My Tit and Call Me A Liar" was posted, and the matter entered the court of public opinion. The vague, incendiary, and now demonstrably inaccurate information published in that initial article provoked vehement speculation both about the incident itself and the participants involved, leading to a number of innocent industry figures being fingered for Brownstein's actions. Even a response from Colleen Doran disavowing her statements in Bourgeois' January follow-up roundtable with Lea Hernandez and "Beatrix Kyle," [url=http://popcultureshock.com/features.php?id=1250 part one; http://popcultureshock.com/features.php?id=1262"The Tit Grab Heard Around the World," part two[/url] did not settle matters down on either count. On her blog, Doran wrote, "I was originally given the impression that the man had a good deal of power and influence and was an ‘elder statesman,’ but that is simply not the case. My principal concern is how this matter is being framed, and how this will be dealt with in a court of law. If we devolve into hyperbole and statements are made that cannot be verified, then this is going to be an utter mess that will do no one any good at all." In the span of the subsequent four months since the initial report by Bourgeois, speculation ran rampant as to the alleged attacker's identity, with many suspects' names being whispered as possibilities, from beloved Silver Age creators who were on the convention's guest list, to those who more closely matched the criteria given by Bourgeois in her report, namely that he was the current leader of an organization that worked to help creators in need. Given the "creators in need" phrase, ACTOR head Jim McLauchlin found himself suspected of being the attacker, which he strongly denied both privately and publicly, most recently in Rich Johnston's Lying in the Gutters, saying: "I've never been to Columbus, Ohio in my life, and I think the last time I was in the state at all was 1997. I am thinking about going to the convention this year, however, as a lot of folks have told me it's really great." Though the tone of McLauchlin's comments may sound light, McLauchlin's friends have indicated to Newsarama that the accusations and suspicion had caused a great deal of personal stress in both his public and private life. McLauchlin may have been the only person to come forward to disavow his role as suspect, but he was far from the only innocent bystander to be unjustly maligned by Bourgeois' reporting. Even in light of the current revelations, Bourgeois' statements could be seen as defamatory of both Brownstein and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. Indeed, Bourgeois' articles on the subject have led to a belief that Soma's attacker had threatened her with blacklisting should she talk, something that Brownstein unequivocally denies: "I have not done and would not do anything to besmirch nor harm Taki's reputation or career in any manner. I'm the servant of a public trust who has never worked with Taki in any capacity, and am in no position to either offer or reject her work, nor am I in a position to otherwise influence anyone else in doing so. Nor would I, were I in such a position of influence." Likewise Bourgeois' initial column alleged that, "[T]his group offered a donation to be made to a 'chick charity' (my word not theirs) and a brief suspension of this man from the position." The Comics Journal's report indicates that this is not true, stating, "With Lillie-Paetz as the intermediary, Brownstein made further apologies and offers of penance to Soma in the form of a donation to the charity of her choice and a promise to stay away from conventions where she was in attendance." With the formal investigation already afoot behind closed doors, Bourgeois stated, "Ideally, this group and its board need to come together and treat this seriously and do something very soon. I get the feeling that they think this will blow over and that they can ignore it. But that is not the case. So if they do not want to look like asses something must be done. I have no qualms about telling the whole damned world of the corruption afoot, even if it brands me as well." Evidence now revealed indicates that the CBLDF did not ignore the matter, and followed proper legal process rather than allowing itself to be baited into a battle of public opinion. One must ask whether a company that hires an independent specialist firm to investigate serious allegations against an employee before taking final action is corrupt for doing so, or would they have been more corrupt had they, without giving both sides due process, acceded to what Bourgeois asserts was Soma's desire: "All she asked for was his dismissal so that he would not use his position to hurt another." A recurring topic in both Soma's and Bourgeois' accounts have been allegations that Brownstein's actions towards Soma were not an isolated incident. In the April article, where Soma first came forward Bourgeois alleges, "I want to tell you that in researching this case and talking to witnesses I have heard numerous accounts of behavior by the alleged attacker that range from just demeaning women to unsolicited advances to full blown assault, the earliest of which I found going back to 2003." This area has yet to be definitively proven on either side, and so it cannot be said whether those statements are defamatory of Brownstein or not, but it is important to note the Journal's discussion of this allegation: "All that is known is that an outside attorney was brought in who questioned some of the women that Soma alluded to with her reference to 'repeated behavior.' What kind of repeated behavior? Nothing the Journal was able to discover, even among the worst hearsay and online gossip, amounted to more than instances of overly familiar touching and one unwanted backrub allegedly given to a volunteer." As the Journal and others have suggested, Bourgeois' writings have not only brought undue distress and suspicion upon ACTOR and its president, as well as untrue and unfounded accusations about the CBLDF, but her actions have placed the Friends of Lulu in a difficult position that could imperil that organization's future viability. In the same column where Soma first aired her allegations publicly, Bourgeois announced the establishment of the Friends of Lulu Empowerment Fund. Initial reaction in the blogosphere was divided between loud cheers and an undercurrent of skepticism that dredged up previous allegations of misuse of funds at FoL. In the following week's "What A Girl Wants: Fund Criteria and Update," Bourgeois announced how the Fund was to be managed, although, as The Comics Journal pointed out, those criteria raised even more questions. The Journal reports, "Some questioned whether the new fund fits into the goals of FoL's charter mission statement. As a tax-deductible nonprofit organization, FoL is legally bound to function within the parameters of those goals. Bourgeois responded by citing the goals outlined on the organization's FAQ page: 1) to increase female readership of comics 2) to promote the work of women in comics 3) to offer networking opportunities and general support to women in comics, and 4) to facilitate communication among women and men who share the organization's purpose. Specifically, she pointed to goal number three, asking, 'Is this fund not providing support to women in the industry?'" It is one thing for Bourgeois and the blogosphere to be satisfied that the Empowerment Fund fulfills the third point of the organization's mission goals. It is another matter to satisfy the IRS that a charity registered on www.Guidestar.org (a leading charity information clearinghouse) as falling under the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities code of "A70 Humanities Organization" can engage in fundraising for financial awards that contribute to civil litigation. As full details of the case that sparked it come to light, it is an open question as to whether the FoL Empowerment Fund will enjoy the financial support it will require to help Soma bring a civil case against Brownstein. Likewise, the new revelations indicate serious questions about the actual merits of that case. Newsarama has inquired about these and other aspects of the Fund to the FoL Board, and is expecting to post the interview later this week. If there is any consensus to be found about Brownstein's alleged molesting of Taki Soma, it is that the entire event was wrong, and will prove harmful to all of the principals involved. Even Brownstein admits that his actions were shameful. The only definitive answer to whether Brownstein is guilty of the allegations he faces can be provided by a court of law. Whether Brownstein's alleged attempt to strip Soma of her clothing should result in the stripping of his livelihood is the question at issue in the court of public opinion. But all of the facts emerging about the case, and the statements of both parties, should beg the larger question of whether more harm was done to Soma, Brownstein, and the industry at large, by forcing the matter into the jurisdiction of the message boards. Newsarama openly acknowledges that Matt Brady and Charles Brownstein have been professional acquaintances since 2001 when they were both colleagues reporting for comicon.com, and that has resulted in longstanding friendship. Brady realizes that this might be seen as a conflict of interest by some, regarding the preceding article, but believes that rather than being a 'puff piece', this makes him more likely to probe the issues - as a both a friendship and, more importantly, his professional credibility are at stake. However, Brady understands if some people feel otherwise. |
|
05-02-2006, 06:40 PM
|
#2 |
|
|
Wow. There is no way I am reading all of that.
I feel bad for any victim of sexual assualt though. |
|
05-02-2006, 06:44 PM
|
#3 |
|
|
Boringggg.
No criminal charges filed, case closed. Drunken fools reap what they sow.
|
|
05-02-2006, 06:45 PM
|
#4 | |
|
|
Quote:
It's rather thorough. But take the time. On PDA, computer screen or printed out. It's an important read. |
|
|
05-02-2006, 06:46 PM
|
#5 |
|
|
Must be a really slow news day for comics.
|
|
05-02-2006, 06:49 PM
|
#6 | |
|
|
Quote:
Don't worry, tomorrow should fix that. |
|
|
05-02-2006, 06:57 PM
|
#7 |
|
|
Great piece Matt.
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:00 PM
|
#8 | |
|
|
Quote:
You're the reason the Internet shouldn't exist. Go back to the Hal-as-Green-Latern thread. |
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:01 PM
|
#9 |
|
|
Now that the details are out this has turned out to be much ado about very little.
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:02 PM
|
#10 | |
|
|
Quote:
The sad thing is that, while I agree with many of your points, I think you would have been better off avoiding this obvious conflict. Most of the piece was covered by the Comics Journal article. All of the new information either supports Brownstein's version, cuts down Ms. Bourgeois, or questions whether the FOL should be involved in these sorts of matters. It just didn't feel balanced. Like the CBLDF, you would have been better off getting a third party to review the situation. |
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:02 PM
|
#11 | |
|
|
Quote:
Seconded. Apathy is not something one ought to be proud of. |
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:08 PM
|
#12 | |
|
|
Quote:
There may be reasons for that, beyond the accusation of bias. |
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:10 PM
|
#13 |
|
|
I have known Charles Brownstein since he was sixteen years old. In over a decade’s worth of conversation on nearly every subject imaginable (including women), I know that he is neither mauler nor rapist, nor sexual predator.
While the incident in Ohio was unfortunate and unacceptable (and, yes, I royally reamed my friend for it) it was, upon close scrutiny, a drunken indiscretion. Does this excuse it? No. Should this have happened? Absolutely not. But, did it warrant the furor created in its wake by an irresponsible, unethical and inconsequential blogger? Again, no. Many innocent individuals and both involved parties had their reputations hurt as a result of its poorly written, poorly researched over-emotional tone. I will continue to support Charles both publicly and privately based on his life and his deeds, not on a momentary lapse of good judgment. I will continue to support the CBLDF until the day I die. I trust that rational adults will do likewise. Jim Valentino |
|
05-02-2006, 07:10 PM
|
#14 |
|
|
Great piece Matt!
I can't find any coverage on the CBLDF website, I would like to read their official statement and coverage of the case since it cost members $7,500. Does someone have a link?
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:12 PM
|
#15 |
|
|
Matt Brady,
you should be commended for your honesty on this issue. you should know that the majority of the people on this site trust your judgement as well as your integrity |
|
05-02-2006, 07:14 PM
|
#16 | |
|
|
Quote:
I think he needs illustrations to hold his interest. aint that sad?? |
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:14 PM
|
#17 |
|
|
How did he "allegedly" molest her?
He admitted it, right? Sure, it hasn't been proven in a court of law, but in that light, Bin Laden only allegedly helped the 9/11 hijackers. We know he did something wrong. |
|
05-02-2006, 07:14 PM
|
#18 | |
|
|
Quote:
|
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:15 PM
|
#19 | |
|
|
Quote:
Noted. But that doesn't change the slant of the article, in the way that it really does paint Taki as a "lying whore." Maybe she is, but this article now makes Newsarama no better than Buzzscope. More balance was required. |
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:21 PM
|
#20 |
|
|
This is a basic conflict of interest, Matt. Were you a reporter for a newspaper, any sane editor would recuse you from writing about the incident or even commenting on it. It doesn't matter how hard you tried to stay neutral, you have a vested interest in the outcome.
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:22 PM
|
#21 | |
|
|
Quote:
Wow. If that's what you got out of the article I would say you have some serious issues. I don't see where anyone (including Brownstein) was even so much as implying that. I thought the article was more critical of the initial blogger than anything else. And there is no denying that Soma's written statement is strikingly inconsistent with information contained in the Comic Journal investiagtive article (notably not involved with either party, by the way). Although I don't necessarily disagree that Matt should have handed the piece to someone else. The following sentence: It begs the question, if Soma's public allegation that she was groped by Brownstein was told to police, why would their statement to the Journal cite only an "attempted fondling?" especially made me cringe. "Only an attempted fondling", like it's not that big of a deal. Of course, that attitude is the result of the overly emotional initial blog entry that, from what it sounds like, exaggerated the incident and now runs the risk of making the alleged perpetrator look like a victim, and the victim seem somewhat less victimized. However, saying the article made Taki look like a "lying whore" only continues the unfortunate tendency of exaggerated internet postings done in order to generate a stronger reaction. Last edited by funjoe : 05-02-2006 at 07:28 PM. |
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:24 PM
|
#22 | |
|
|
Quote:
Wow I totally did not get that from this article at all. If anything the article took the position that this was a horrible horrible situation for all parties involved and possibly made worse by the boards taking shots at it. |
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:30 PM
|
#23 | |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, a person in his position should know better. Period. |
|
|
05-02-2006, 07:34 PM
|
#24 |
|
|
Excellent Piece
First of all, to those citing a "slow news day" and claiming "it's too long to read", why do you even bother posting?
Your displays of ignorance do nothing to further the reputation of these message boards. It's boards like these that fed the flames on this fire and blew the whole thing industry wide. I would never have heard of any of this had it not been for "Lying in The Gutters" and Rich Johnston's attempt to level headedly (jeesh, who woulda thunk it) seperate the hyperbole from the facts without metioning names. I followed links and read the piece by Ms. Bourgeois, which struck me as potentially slanderous. It was certainly inflammatory. And now that many of her "facts" have not been borne out, it makes HER motivation highly suspect. I do not know these folks, so these are just the outside observations of a male reader. Having learned of the incident through this board and those over at Comic Book Resources, it was good to see a piece here which attempted to lay out all the details and "facts" as reported to police, the CBLDF, and as posted in comic's online communities.Again, I do not know these people. I have read quotes and reports of Mr Brownstein's activities for the CBLDF, and he sounds like he's (usually) coming from a good place. Some speculation: The incident was wrong and embarassing, as all agree and Brady points out. From descriptions and versions of the event, it sounds like Mr. Brownstein and Ms. Soma had been encountering each other at conventions and hanging out. While NOTHING EXCUSES HIS BEHAVIOR, it sounds like Brownstein thought he and Ms. Soma were getting closer. With drunken late night partying, and Ms. Soma not departing after being thrown in the pool twice, as a geek male I can at least understand that Mr. Brownstein may have thought his playful overtones were welcome. This is not in any way implying that Ms. Soma was "asking for it" as some neanderthals might suggest, merely a suggestion that this was interpersonal miscommunication that never should have been dragged into the community spotlight in the first place. |
|
05-02-2006, 07:37 PM
|
#25 |
|
|
Well, I don't know Brownstein, and I only know Taki from conversing with her on Brian Bendis' message forum. She always seemed like a smart and levelheaded young woman to me. I have a hard time believing she did anything wrong.
It sounds like to me to be a case of bad decision-making via indulgence in alcohol. Hopefully this situation can be resolved before it turns into something really ugly. |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:03 PM.
