Geoffrey Rush, Yael Stone and the assumption of guilt

Last night, Geoffrey Rush had yet more allegations aimed against him. With his defamation case still open, I’m reminded of another case that we can’t talk about.



Last night, Yael Stone fronted the ABC to further illustrate further allegations against Geoffrey Rush. This we know, but we’re already assuming a lot more. We’re assuming that he’s guilty, because last night looks a lot like a repetition of the same behaviour, a pattern. Why would it be untrue if more people are saying it? I’m not saying that he did do these things, but I’m saying that we think that he did. It’s worth mentioning that Rush’s defamation case against the Daily Telegraph remains open, with a judgement, officially, yet to be made.

Whatever happens in the court of law, the gavel has already fallen in the court of public opinion. I’m not singling anyone out, but the tone on Twitter follows a particular tone: He did it.





With that being said, it’s an extremely interesting discussion to have regarding what qualifies as consent, and how lines are blurred and moved along with a fictional narrative. As an objective argument, it’s one we should be having. Subjectively, through the prism of Rush, while the jury is out, I’m not so sure.



Last night’s interview was important, because it was reminiscent of another case we can’t talk about. Late last week, something happened to someone prominent. A certain something we’ve long assumed to be true. It happened, but we’re not to discuss it, and to make sure we couldn’t, a suppression order was issued. Because the public can impair judgement, we’re left discussing the periphery. But we do so, under the assumption of guilt. The difference, of course, is the machinations of the legal world. One is protected by the court, the other isn’t.

Case A was found guilty, Case B is guilty on assumption.

Whether he did it or not, is a matter up for discussion. But there is more than one being had.





Share via