Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Elmo's accuser recants. This headline is brought to you by the letter "L" for Libel   (blogs.wsj.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, puppeteers, sexual relationship  
•       •       •

3893 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:31 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-11-14 02:34:23 AM  
5 votes:
From the beginning, it sounded like a jilted ex trying to ruin the career of a successful puppeteer by making outlandish claims to the media with the idea that even if none of it is true, the thought will be put in people's heads so they'll convict him in the court of public opinion on the allegations alone. I've seen that very thing happen many times before, so the shady nature of this story and the fact that the sensation-driven, ethics-lacking MSM ran with it before getting any facts didn't surprise me at all.

What also doesn't surprise me is the number of people who so wish for it to be true that they'll jump to any unfounded conclusion that satisfies their bias, even if that means suggesting that Clash and/or Sesame Workshop paid off the accuser despite a lack of any evidence that would prove it. I would love for all of this to blow over not only for Kevin Clash, Sesame Street, PBS and all the children that adore Elmo, but I fear some damage has already been done. In fact, I've already read comments on Facebook and Twitter from ignorant farks that say they'll no longer allow their kids to watch Sesame Street or own anything Elmo-related since the accusation, and I doubt very much anything will change in their minds now.
2012-11-13 10:43:31 PM  
5 votes:
Also brought to you by the letter S, for "Secret" and the letter O for "Out of court settlement in exchange for a recant to avoid a painful and tenuous trial."
2012-11-14 01:12:46 AM  
3 votes:

BravadoGT: So the 47-year old waited until the kid was 18 to nail him? Whew! Technically legal=totally acceptable.


Can you explain what's wrong with it? I don't get the appeal myself, but they're both adults. Hugh Hefner is considered a stud for being a million years old with college-aged girls still flocking to him, but this dude is a pervert?
2012-11-13 10:38:27 PM  
3 votes:

NowhereMon: Yup, I had a scoutmaster and an English teacher that were both accused of this and both were eventually cleared. Neither were able to return to the work they loved.


Except Sesame Workshop already did their own investigation months ago and backed Clash up. It would be awfully cowardly of them to back down.
2012-11-13 09:22:02 PM  
3 votes:

Earguy: CraicBaby: Sad. His career is ruined now no matter what.

Nah, I think he'll be okay. In his circle, being gay is no big deal. If anything, it can be an education to the world that being gay does not equal pedophile, even if you work with children.


Sexual orientation doesn't matter. It's the accusation that he had sex with someone who was underage that will ruin his career, even if it was retracted. People only hear the initial accusation. They rarely see the retraction.
2012-11-14 08:47:10 AM  
2 votes:

Waldo Pepper: It is the same thing. Sure maybe they never touched a child or even thought about touching a child but there is a greater chance of being tempted and falling if when surrounded by the gender of their desires.


No. Just no. I'm sorry if spending time with little girls would make you want to rape them, though. You probably ought to not associate with many. Just be aware that normal people aren't like that. Not even normal gay people. A normal gay man in a kindergarten wouldn't suddenly look around and think "Hey, there are a lot of boys here that I see every day, I should probably fark one". Nor would a normal straight man and little girls. You either like little kids or you don't.
2012-11-13 11:45:05 PM  
2 votes:

CraicBaby: People only hear the initial accusation. They rarely see the retraction.


Yeah, because the initial accusation was on the Main page, while the retraction is buried on the Entertainment tab.
2012-11-14 01:07:00 PM  
1 vote:

Wayne 985: meanmutton: Wayne 985: BravadoGT: So the 47-year old waited until the kid was 18 to nail him? Whew! Technically legal=totally acceptable.

Can you explain what's wrong with it? I don't get the appeal myself, but they're both adults. Hugh Hefner is considered a stud for being a million years old with college-aged girls still flocking to him, but this dude is a pervert?

First off, the kid was 16 at the time not 18.

Secondly, Hugh Hefner is creepy. To whom is he a stud? As far as I know, people just kind of see him as a pathetic figure at this point.

[citation needed] He alleged he was 16, then recanted. That's the point of this article.


Plus, 16 is legal age in over half the states in the union.
2012-11-14 09:18:21 AM  
1 vote:
Lets stop comparing Sandusky and clash, FFS. farking a 16 year old is not pedophilia, and I don't give a damn what the law says. That's a person whose been going through puberty for FOUR YEARS NOW. They can drive. If they want to have sex with a 45 year old dude, it is not going to be a traumatic experience.

If you can prove he was coerced into something he didn't want initially, or somehow forced, or somehow this has ACTUALLY damaged his life, fine. but lets stop pretending 16 year olds don't have goddamn sex.
2012-11-14 08:50:17 AM  
1 vote:

The Downfall: RoyHobbs22: TheJoe03: Who in the industry did this guy piss off?

Mr. Noodle?

Mr Noodle died in 2003.


Well at least we still have Mr. Noodle's brother, Mr. Noodle.

//and their sister, Ms. Noodle...rowr.
2012-11-14 08:39:14 AM  
1 vote:

Wayne 985: BravadoGT: So the 47-year old waited until the kid was 18 to nail him? Whew! Technically legal=totally acceptable.

Can you explain what's wrong with it? I don't get the appeal myself, but they're both adults. Hugh Hefner is considered a stud for being a million years old with college-aged girls still flocking to him, but this dude is a pervert?


No, Hugh Hefner is considered a pathetic laughable broke-down old man who has to pay women to pretend to like him.
2012-11-14 07:53:09 AM  
1 vote:

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Flip it and reverse it...

EchoMike: From the beginning, it sounded like an jilted ex trying to ruin the career of abused youth finding the courage to confront the man who took advantage of him of a successful puppeteer by making outlandish courageous claims to the media with the idea that even if none of it is true legal justice isn't served, the thought will be put in people's heads so they'll convict him in the court of public opinion on the allegations alone. I've seen that very thing happen many times before, so the shady nature of this story and the fact that the sensation-driven, ethics-lacking MSM ran with it before getting any facts didn't surprise me at all.

What also doesn't surprise me is the number of people who so wish for it to be true that they'll jump to any unfounded conclusion that satisfies their bias, even if that means suggesting that Clash and/or Sesame Workshop paid off the accuser is lying despite a lack of any evidence that would prove it. I would love for all of this to blow over go to court not only for Kevin Clash, Sesame Street, PBS and to protect all the children that adore Elmo, but I fear some damage has already been done, a child has been molested/abused. In fact, I've already read comments on Facebook and Twitter from ignorant farks that say they'll no longer allow their kids to watch Sesame Street or own anything Elmo-related believe anything said against Clash since the accusation, and I doubt very much anything will change in their minds now. 

I don't know all the facts and the truth of the matter and, guess what?, neither do you. Your argument works from the other side just as well for the same reasons you make it.

In general, formerly sexually abused youths when accusing famous, rich people don't find justice in the end. See: just about every previous time this has happened. Odds seem to favor that the individual is silenced under threat of serious lawyerage and an alternative of money; good enough odds to bet on that be ...


This thing with Kevin Clash doesn't even come close to the Jerry Sandusky case. There were investigations of both situations, but Sandusky was revealed to have engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse against kids, and there was evidence to support it. Even in that case, I thought it was premature to judge him until more information was brought to light.

With Clash, the only sticking point was the age of the accuser at the time. Clash acknowledged having a relationship with him, but claimed that both he and the other individual were consenting adults at the time. Again, I felt judgment should have been reserved until more information came out or until the accuser recanted his story. And in similar stories from the past that have been dragged through the media because of the notoriety of the accused, more often than not the accuser is the one found to be lying.
2012-11-14 06:22:38 AM  
1 vote:

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Flip it and reverse it...

EchoMike: From the beginning, it sounded like an jilted ex trying to ruin the career of abused youth finding the courage to confront the man who took advantage of him of a successful puppeteer by making outlandish courageous claims to the media with the idea that even if none of it is true legal justice isn't served, the thought will be put in people's heads so they'll convict him in the court of public opinion on the allegations alone. I've seen that very thing happen many times before, so the shady nature of this story and the fact that the sensation-driven, ethics-lacking MSM ran with it before getting any facts didn't surprise me at all.

What also doesn't surprise me is the number of people who so wish for it to be true that they'll jump to any unfounded conclusion that satisfies their bias, even if that means suggesting that Clash and/or Sesame Workshop paid off the accuser is lying despite a lack of any evidence that would prove it. I would love for all of this to blow over go to court not only for Kevin Clash, Sesame Street, PBS and to protect all the children that adore Elmo, but I fear some damage has already been done, a child has been molested/abused. In fact, I've already read comments on Facebook and Twitter from ignorant farks that say they'll no longer allow their kids to watch Sesame Street or own anything Elmo-related believe anything said against Clash since the accusation, and I doubt very much anything will change in their minds now. 

I don't know all the facts and the truth of the matter and, guess what?, neither do you. Your argument works from the other side just as well for the same reasons you make it.

In general, formerly sexually abused youths when accusing famous, rich people don't find justice in the end. See: just about every previous time this has happened. Odds seem to favor that the individual is silenced under threat of serious lawyerage and an alternative of money; good enough odds to bet on that being the case with a half-billion dollar brand name's rep at stake. When justice is found, it becomes such a big story that it generally becomes a meme here on Fark. Sorry, but they aren't all lying just because they aren't famous no matter how much you wish it to be. Just because Clash happens to have a particular sexual orientation doesn't make him automatically innocent anymore than it makes him automatically guilty. At least for those posting here on Fark, we're concerned about a man sexually abusing a child (at the time) thirty years his junior in a relationship he already acknowledged as having. What's it matter if he's gay, straight or whatever when the concern is pedophilia? You almost make it sound like he shouldn't undergo the same level of investigation as a straight man facing a similar accusation. 

Sandusky should've taught all of us by now that accusations of this nature must be given due diligence and be investigated and not just be ignored because it's "obviously a money grab against a famous person" or "a jilted ex" -- how many evil acts have been ignored with that kind of reasoning? To speak rhetorically here: Do you make the same arguments in support of straight guys who abuse teenage or younger girls? Or rape victims? That they're just jilted exes looking for money? I'd think not, so why assume that here?

Maybe instead of it being about a guy being gay or straight it all really comes down to whether he farked a child.


You bring up Sandusky, but wasn't Sandusky abusing little kids? If the worst-case scenario for the Elmo scandal is true, we are talking about a Courtney Stodden case here. There would definitely be an ook factor, but I do not see this as pedophilia. In fact, remembering back to my long-ago days as a girl in high school, sixteen-year-old boys seemed a lot more ready and eager to have sex than sixteen-year old girls.
2012-11-14 01:50:15 AM  
1 vote:

arbitterm: Also brought to you by the letter S, for "Secret" and the letter O for "Out of court settlement in exchange for a recant to avoid a painful and tenuous trial."


If somebody takes cash money to 'recant', there was nothing to recant in the first place. The recant was the truth all along. These freaks are just like the ADA shakedown artists and 'I fell into the mall fountain while talking on my cell' con artists: they are betting on the settlement, not the court case. And fking attorneys always seem to advise their clients -- even when their clients want to fight -- 'okay, whatever, just give them the money' instead of 'we're going to fight this'

See also: MJ

I never believe settlements anymore.

And I sure as hell don't believe them of someone who claims a horrible crime but is willing to let it go away with the right cash amount. Legal blackmail is still blackmail.
2012-11-14 12:31:16 AM  
1 vote:
Obvious what happened - Clash finally paid up. This was a shakedown, but Elmo should have blinked a lot sooner as he will forever be tarnished by this.
2012-11-14 12:29:26 AM  
1 vote:
John Tartaglia is a Sesame Street alum (also had a show on Disney Channel) and also gay, so it's not that big of a deal. I don't think being a gay man will hurt Kevin Clash at all. Also, if the guy was legal while he was having sex with him, who cares what the age difference is? That's why we have age of consent. The whole issue was if he was having sex with a minor- which I guess we'll never find out thanks to a settlement or a threatened libel suit.

Now can we all just agree that Grover is way better than Elmo and move on?
2012-11-14 12:28:48 AM  
1 vote:

gingerjet: CraicBaby: Sexual orientation doesn't matter. It's the accusation that he had sex with someone who was underage that will ruin his career, even if it was retracted. People only hear the initial accusation. They rarely see the retraction.

Its 2012 not 1981. This will blow over and he will be fine.


See Bryant, Kobe.
2012-11-14 12:28:07 AM  
1 vote:
He wants it to be known that his sexual relationship with Mr. Clash was an adult consensual relationship,

So this must have happened after he turned 18? Something went south with their relationship.
2012-11-14 12:25:58 AM  
1 vote:
You gotta go with Bert and Ernie coming by to break his kneecaps if he didn't recant.
2012-11-14 12:12:07 AM  
1 vote:
Who cares about the whole gay / inappropriate relationship thing. I'm still in shock over a very large African American male being the voice of Elmo. I've known this for years, but still can't seem to accept it as truth.
2012-11-14 12:06:19 AM  
1 vote:

fqhollis: So the first story is on the main page, but the recant/clearing is only in the entertainment tab?

Hurm.


This burying of the truth brought to you by the guy who wants you to have a seat over there.
2012-11-14 12:00:53 AM  
1 vote:
So the first story is on the main page, but the recant/clearing is only in the entertainment tab?

Hurm.
2012-11-13 11:40:05 PM  
1 vote:

DrewCurtisJr: Earguy: Nah, I think he'll be okay. In his circle, being gay is no big deal.

What circle is that? Plenty of parents want the people who entertain their pre-schoolers to be squeaky clean.


Should have never done that documentary. Now they all know who he is and what he does.
2012-11-13 11:30:41 PM  
1 vote:

CraicBaby: Sad. His career is ruined now no matter what.


Nope. He might be gay, but he's not a woman. These sorts of thing only ruin careers at PBS is the employee is a woman.
2012-11-13 11:17:36 PM  
1 vote:

Earguy: Nah, I think he'll be okay. In his circle, being gay is no big deal.


What circle is that? Plenty of parents want the people who entertain their pre-schoolers to be squeaky clean. So he didn't do anything illegal, but having a gay relationship with someone almost 30 years younger than him still comes off as scandalous. And the abrupt way the retraction came leaves room for a lot of speculation.

Send Elmo over to Avenue Q.
2012-11-13 10:54:46 PM  
1 vote:

Waldo Pepper: sesame street has deep pockets.


If they did, don't you think they would have been FOR Romney like every other rich entity in the country?
2012-11-13 10:53:09 PM  
1 vote:

CraicBaby: Sexual orientation doesn't matter. It's the accusation that he had sex with someone who was underage that will ruin his career, even if it was retracted. People only hear the initial accusation. They rarely see the retraction.


Its 2012 not 1981. This will blow over and he will be fine.
2012-11-13 10:38:49 PM  
1 vote:

OregonVet: Earguy: If anything, it can be an education to the world that being gay does not equal pedophile, even if you work with children.

This

On the cover it looks like another Church scandal. But we know from our experience (at least most of us) that big bird, grover, or any other androgynous puppet would ever rape us.


To be fair, we've been sticking our hands up their asses for years and you don't hear them complaining
2012-11-13 10:36:23 PM  
1 vote:

TheJoe03: Who in the industry did this guy piss off?


Big Bird?
2012-11-13 10:35:21 PM  
1 vote:
Who in the industry did this guy piss off?
2012-11-13 09:34:18 PM  
1 vote:

CraicBaby: People only hear the initial accusation. They rarely see the retraction.


Yup, I had a scoutmaster and an English teacher that were both accused of this and both were eventually cleared. Neither were able to return to the work they loved.
2012-11-13 08:20:03 PM  
1 vote:
Sad. His career is ruined now no matter what.
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report