Fairandlove

It seems like her chances of winning her case against Finlay are slim to none since the statute requires ‘proof of intent to cause financial or emotional harm’. 
 Whilst sharing the photos may have been wrong, it’s a stretch to imagine that was his intent.

On 9/29/2020 at 1:22 AM, pherank said:

I'm not totally surprised - many of the charges required evidence that just didn't seem to exist. Imo, Waterbury did not receive good legal council - it's the lawyer's job to explain what is actually doable under the law. Wouldn't filing a Civil Negligence case against the 4 men have made more sense? But going after NYCB and SAB was always going to be a reach - way too much to prove.

Yes but think about it, the men don’t have money, the institutions do.

 Her lawyer deals with cases in the millions of dollars, he wasn’t representing her to get justice against some dancers in my opinion.

6 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

What we think does matter.  The law has determined that Ramasar did not commit a crime against Waterbury.  (I'll go out on a limb and predict that her civil suit against him will be dismissed as well.). She may feel that it was violence,  but her feelings don't have the force of law.

Cheers to you.

 For those above who disagreed with my prior post about the perception of what violence against someone means.

 If I said that OnPointe had ‘committed and incited violent acts to be done against me and was a sexual predator’, I highly doubt you would perceive that as he/she had asked to see naked photos of me. 

1 hour ago, canbelto said:

There is no difference between fact and feeling. Whether someone is victimized depends entirely on whether she FEELS victimized. 

To suggest that an opinion and a factual statement have no difference is preposterous.

Words have meanings and words have consequences.  

10 minutes ago, canbelto said:

As I said, if a victim feels violated, she feels violated. No one is entitled to tell victims how they can or can't feel.

People are allowed to ‘feel’ anyway they like, in which case somebody says ‘I feel.......’ not ‘he is......’ or ‘he did......’

8 minutes ago, nanushka said:

I think you’re projecting a very specific meaning onto her words and then asserting that her words don’t make sense — which it’s true, they don’t, if the very specific meaning you’re projecting is the only one they could have.

It’s the meaning that a normal person viewing any of this would come to conclude.

8 minutes ago, nanushka said:

So if her photos had already been shared with others, it didn’t matter that Ramasar asked for them to be shared with him too? No further harm? How do you figure that?

Not what I said, I was purely stating that her comment that Amar specifically asked for ‘the violence’ to be done against her makes no sense.

In the sense that all of this is somehow Amar’s fault. It sounds like she’s saying that Finlay created material to share with him at his request.

42 minutes ago, canbelto said:

Why does that matter?  This is like the Harvey Weinstein “you talked to him” defense, this is why rape prosecutions don’t want women on the jury, because of judgmental stuff like this.

Of course it matters. Waterbury stated that Amar “specifically asked for this violence to be done against me”. 
 Again, is asking for a photo of someone ‘violence’, and if her photos had already been shared prior to Amar asking, his actions didn’t contribute to anything that hadn’t already happened. 

13 minutes ago, nanushka said:

Right, but then "the women" and "they" shifts abruptly to "she" in the next sentence. As an IG caption, it seems unedited, was likely typed on a phone, and has the same sorts of inconsistencies (of grammar, syntax, reference, etc.) that are commonplace in speech. As a result, in a variety of ways, it just doesn't really hold up to careful parsing.

And it doesn't strike me as evidence of malicious intent to deceive.

Is Waterbury behaving in rash, misguided, careless, unwise ways? Yes, I think so. Is she demonstrating malicious intent to deceive the public about Ramasar? No, I don't think so.

This is why words matter. If you’re trying to get someone fired your message and reasoning needs to be clear.

One thing that was pointed out in a comment on social media that I totally overlooked is that in the lawsuit Waterbury says that on May 15th 2017 she discovered her image was being shared, yet it wasn’t until May 21st that Amar asked Finlay to send her photo.

 What happened in those 6 or more days? Presumably Waterbury remained with Finlay if she was able to retrieve more messages from his laptop at a later date. 

7 minutes ago, nanushka said:

Is that "definitely intentionally" misleading? No. It certainly may be intentionally misleading, but whether it is or not is not apparent from that post. Just as likely, the person who wrote it is passionate and confused. Certainly an imperfect spokesperson. Also not, apparently, Waterbury.

Here’s one from Waterbury herself, again using plurality. 

”You have manipulated the women you violated into claiming they consented”

Another example from the Wssprotest people. They definitely intentionally use plurals to indicate this was a larger incident than it was. 

2 minutes ago, nanushka said:

As anyone who has spent any amount of time on social media should well know, it is very easy to find plenty of examples of people who express misguided opinions because they have been careless readers and sloppy thinkers. It just isn't that hard to find, on really any topic, and individual examples of it really prove absolutely nothing.

Take a look at the messages that get posted on West Side Stories social media pages then. These are not individual cases. 
 A lot of people seem to believe that Amar either took photos of Waterbury and shared them or he physically assaulted Waterbury.

Just to be clear, this is the type of rhetoric the misleading petition has lead to: 

Just now, Leah said:

Yep, I was correcting someone else. To your post- Ramasar did ask for more photos, and I highly doubt that they have only done this to two women. I think it’s probably irresponsible but I don’t think Waterbury’s silence is defamatory in itself. But I haven’t seen all the details.

Let’s look at this from another viewpoint. Had the petition only stated Waterbury’s grievance that Amar asked her boyfriend for her naked photos, would people pay as much attention?

There was no incentive for Waterbury to change any of the language in the petition if a) she isn’t culpable for any defamation from it and b) it helped get more protesters involved.

19 minutes ago, Leah said:

 

Waterbury did not say countless women. The girl behind the petition did. 

But Waterbury stands arm in arm with that woman at the protests as well as promotes her petition in her Instagram bio. We can reasonably assume that she has read the petition and since she knows her personally, would be easy to correct.

10 minutes ago, Leah said:

Maybe you believe that Ramasar has been sufficiently punished already, but that does not mean that Waterbury is just deviously making things up for her own ends.

I have posted the Change.org petition below which Alexandra has actively participated in, both as a protestor and linking to it via her social media. The texts quoted were written by Chase Finlay, not Amar, which is the first misleading point.

It states that he has violated ‘countless women with intent to violate more’. This is also misleading, there were only two women involved with Amar’s participation and any texts speaking of intent were from Finlay or Loghitano,  not Amar.

Whilst Waterbury didn’t start this petition she has made no efforts to clarify or amend these points.

“Last year, dancer Alexandra Waterbury, a former student at the School of American Ballet, found out that her then-boyfriend, principal dancer with New York City Ballet, Chase Finlay, along with several other dancers including fellow principal Amar Ramasar, had been taking pictures and videos of dancers engaging in sexual acts with them and sending them around.

Alexandra was not aware that these pictures and videos had been taken, and she definitely had not consented for them to be shared. The texts that have been released from these dancers are truly vile, and snippets that have been released include "You have any pictures of girls you’ve f*cked? I’ll send you some . . . ballerina girls I’ve made scream and squirt," and "fucked a 20-year-old ballerina and her sister! That was my first threesome with family members. It was incredible!"

I am sure that I am not the only person for whom this has struck a cord. Although the dancers were fired by New York City Ballet shortly after the incident, this decision was shortly after rejected, and they were rehired with virtually no consequences. I am shocked and appalled, and although I hope that Alexandra and other victims will get the justice they deserve come a trial next year, there is something we can do now.

West Side Story opens on Broadway on February 20, and Amar Ramasar, one of the main parties involved in the picture and video exchange, is starring as Bernardo. There is no reason why someone who has taken advantage of his power and violated countless women, while stating his intent to violate more, should be able to show his face onstage. Please join me in protesting his position in the musical by signing this petition. Every signature and share is so appreciated and so important. Help make sure that the theater remains a place where EVERYONE can feel safe, and help get Amar Ramasar off the stage.”
 

8 minutes ago, Helene said:

Sadly, pedophile is used colloquially as a pejorative, like chicken hawk was used fairly freely among gay men of my generation.  (I'm not sure if it's still used.). 

Ah yes I understand what you’re saying. Similar to the term jail bait.

I agree it will be interesting to see if there are any legal rebuttals to her public facing stories/posts.

23 minutes ago, Leah said:

But Ramasar would have to prove she didn’t. That’s the problem.

She said in the same story where she said “these men are pedophiles”, that “pictures had to be investigated for underage people”. So there’s proof that she understands the distinction right there. 

To the extent that nobody was arrested and charged as a child sex offender I think it’s obvious that this didn’t occur. Amar’s lawyer recently stated that Alexandra and the protesters have been throwing words around as if they have no meaning. 

1 minute ago, Leah said:

She seems to think that going after younger women makes you a pedophile. Yes, she’s completely wrong. But when it comes to public figures it’s very hard to win a defamation case against someone who is stating an honestly held belief. 

Perhaps, but it doesn’t seem likely for somebody studying at Columbia University to not know the difference. 

1 minute ago, Leah said:

You’re right but she’s saying that his actions make him a pedophile. That’s an opinion and she seems to have clarified it. She’s not, it would appear, making something up out of malicious intent, which is what he would need to prove. 

I disagree since nobody involved in any of the accusations was a minor, how did his actions make him anything close to a pedophile? She was an adult. In one of her stories she boldly stated “these men are pedophiles”.

 This doesn’t seem like an opinion, it is a strong and false accusation. 

2 hours ago, Leah said:

I think that gets closer to reckless disregard that could show actual malice, but I still think it's difficult as she could say it’s her honest opinion and he is a limited purpose public figure. 

But yeesh, she really needs to stop. She could be achieving something meaningful but she doesn’t know how and she will probably be demolished if/when she testifies because of her careless statements.

I don’t see how making an accusation of someone being a pedophile can be considered ‘her opinion’. Either you are or you aren’t. 
 

On 2/22/2020 at 12:42 AM, yukionna4869 said:

I also don't think Ramasar has a case for defamation. Even if he does, the point of a motion to dismiss is to avoid litigation, right? I doubt he would voluntarily put himself through that. With opening night behind him, I don't know how many more headlines the protests can generate. It might just run out of steam on its own.

I did see that Alexandra used the word pedophile to describe Amar. I think he may have a strong case against her there.