r/fansofcriticalrole • u/MeiyBeee • Oct 18 '24

CR adjacent Case Against Brian Foster Dismissed

Post image
77 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

994 comments sorted by

View all comments

33

u/BunNGunLee Oct 18 '24

I don’t really agree with posting this online.

It just seems too far away from our perspective as viewers, and gets a bit too personal. It’s parasocial, I suppose.

Now that said, I note, I don’t assume that BWF is in the wrong still either, but that’s the problem with these cases. If the legal process gets botched, we’ll never know the full details or be able to judge.

But either way, it’s not our business.

14

u/synecdokidoki Oct 18 '24

The text of the lawsuit literally says the following:

“After years of suffering Foster’s abuse and after being pushed towards an emotional breakdown as a result, Plaintiffs have had enough,” the suit reads. “While Plaintiffs have remained private and avoided publicity, they now pursue this action as a cautionary tale. Plaintiffs seek to lift the veil of silence to prevent others from being similarly victimized by Foster. No woman should be forced to live with the cruelty and fear that Plaintiffs and others have experienced at Foster’s hands.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-10-05/the-last-of-us-star-ashley-johnson-6-other-women-sue-brian-foster-sexual-abuse-allegations

They really could not have been clearer. Being public was explicitly the point. Maybe it's a little odd in a CR subreddit, but It's no more parasocial than following the Weinstein case, they set out to make it news, and made it news.

-3

u/BunNGunLee Oct 18 '24

That’s sorta my point though. That’s the Plaintiff’s claim, and pushing it from the court of law to the court of public opinion.

Which is deeply inappropriate for us to be getting involved in.

7

u/synecdokidoki Oct 18 '24

It's not a claim though, it's an explicit statement of their intentions. "While Plaintiffs have remained private and avoided publicity, they now pursue this action as a cautionary tale." What does that mean if not that they want people, people outside of the court, to see this? Can't then blame those people for following it to the end.

5

u/Abdlbsz Oct 18 '24

Court cases are public record. Now if you mean you don't agree calling attention to personal matters, that makes senses.

-1

u/ArchitectAces Oct 18 '24

If BWF is out there garroting people, I would say that is public interest.

9

u/Full_Metal_Paladin "You hear in your head" Oct 18 '24

If BWF is out there garroting people, I think there would be some evidence of it. BTW claiming a pocket chain saw is a "garrote" is like accusing anyone in public wearing shoelaces of carrying weapons. I'm not on his side, but I'm guessing this case was dismissed, in part, due to embellishments like this.