Site Search
Google Search
search button
Breaking News: James Comey Disputes Trump's Belief of 'Spygate'      - | -     Harvey Weinstein Surrenders, Charged with Rape in Manhattan     - | -     Stormy Daniels Wants to Reboot Lawsuit and Depose Trump and Giuliani     - | -     Emails Show that Roger Stone Tried to Get Information on Clinton from WikiLeaks' Assange      - | -     GOP Congressman Invokes 'The Deep State'
DJ Who Groped Taylor Swift Sends $1 Judgment in Sacajawea Coin
Get Your Opinion Alerts

viewsViews 1747
8 Dec 2017 02:22 PM EST

-by Laura Tucker, Staff Writer; Image: Taylor Swift's cover for Reputation (Image Source: Instagram)

A few months before the sexual misconduct accusations blew up around much of Hollywood, Taylor Swift won a court case against a man who had groped her in a photo.

The singer posed for a photo with the DJ, David Mueller, and his girlfriend, and after the photo, she complained to the radio station where he worked that he had reached up under her skirt and grabbed her butt during the photo.

Mueller was promptly fired, and he objected to it, stating he didn't do anything wrong. He sued Swift for $3 million. She countersued. But this wasn't a case of wanting his money. This was a case of right or wrong for her. She sued him for a symbolic $1.

Swift won her case back in August. This week, she appeared on the cover of TIME Magazine to tell the story along with other "Silence Breakers." With renewed interest in her story, she said she had yet to receive the $1.

This caused Mueller to reach out to The Associated Press. He provided them with a letter showing that he sent the payment to her on November 28.

But he didn't send her a check or a dollar bill. He sent her a Sacagawea coin. He'd said earlier that it was meant to get under Swift's skin one last time.

For what reason is that a jab at her? Why is a coin featuring a Native American woman something that would upset Swift? She surely wasn't looking to spend the $1 anyway. She has enough money.

But Mueller isn't her only detractor this week. She also picked one up because she talked about the butt grab but has never publicized her politics. The writer believes if she is outspoken about her sexual assault, then she needs to also be outspoken about her choice for president and the Colin Kaepernick issue.

But why is this her duty? She wasn't even willing, originally, to talk about her sexual assault. Initially, she dropped it, and no one knew. It became well-known only because her attacker sued her. Had he not done that, we'd be in the dark as to what happened.

This brings up a question of how we move forward after this. What types of issues will be sparked moving forward that were kicked off initially with the #MeToo movement?

Now that women have begun to speak up of the horrors they have faced, both in harassment as well as assault, now they should be forced to go public with everything? How does that even make sense?

The accused get to keep whatever they want to themselves other than the atrocity that they dropped on unsuspecting victims. Yet the victims, while losing everything, now don't even get to keep their political feelings to themselves if they wish?

This also has to make you question where we go from here. What will happen with sexual misconduct after this?

Will sexual misconduct stop or at least happen much less? As much as we would all like that to happen, that seems a little unlikely. But abusers might be deterred some.

What will be even more interesting, however, will be if the Silence Breakers will continue to out everyone who has ever wronged them or if they will retreat back into their silence now that the magnitude of the moment has passed.

Either way, victims should never be harassed because they haven't told enough of their truth. And their harassers shouldn't be able to try to insult them with their judgment, whether or not it's actually insulting.

Post Your Comment  
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor



Recently Posted Comments
FREE
AllMediaNY AllMediaNY AllMedaiNY
allmediany market place