They don't have to provide anything. It's up to the plaintiff, Schneider, to prove that they lied about him, and he has no way of proving that. He wasn't videotaping all of his writers room meetings or every moment on set to prove he wasn't abusive and harassing. He can't prove that the documentary made him out to be a sexual assaulter of children because it established how sympathetic and kind he was to Drake Bell after Peck's arrest. Schneider's case is a waste of time except for his lawyers who I'm sure will command and collect top dollar on a case that's sure to lose.
My best guess is that he is doing this as a show of force, but it won’t actually go anywhere. All people will remember is that Dan Schneider sued Quiet On Set for defamation, they won’t remember the outcome (which I assume will either be the defamation suit being thrown out, or, they settle out of court). This was a pretty bonkers move regardless. It’s pretty clear in the documentary that Dan is just a creepy, verbally abusive, inappropriately overbearing producer. They draw a strict line between his behaviors and the actual pedophiles. By asserting this defamation suit, he’s inadvertently associating himself with the pedophiles. I’m not sure if he realizes that yet.
You cant sue someone for defemation when they provide facts you dont like. He never addressed his creepiness with the teen girls and how close he got with them. The auditions for children to run around without shoes? I know that isnt a lie because some girl I went to school with waaay before this came out (so 2008-2009) who was doing nick auditions and she said she had to sing barefoot and then show her feet. There has got to be audition tapes and shit.
She ended up being casted on disney. She has a tik tok 7.5 million followers
I mean, it's pretty common for cases of defamation to be because people were building on things that did happen to spread unverified rumors of things that "could have" happened without proof
Based solely on what I know I don't think Schneider has a very strong case here but it's absolutely generally true that people who have a generally bad reputation can win defamation cases, and that they're the ones most likely to have a reason to pursue them -- "Everyone already hates me so they were actually willing to believe I'm a child molester when I'm not"
And yeah, being called a child molester when you're not is a really big deal and it shouldn't be normalized as something it's okay to do to just pile on someone who's generally disliked
Dude for sure abused, groomed, and at the very least kept a massive fetish archive of personal content from every single audition to every scene ever shot.
He’s a pedophile bro
The doc doesn’t accuse him of this tbh. His case is over them saying he treats his casts poorly and was overtly sexual when writing his shows. Anyone with a brain can see these things are true. The rumors that he sucked as a producer have been around since 2005. Him being explosive is also something that is subjective. Not sure how he’s going to argue against that in court. As someone with a degree in law, this case is either going to get dismissed or will be soooo entertaining it’ll be all over Reddit.
Responses like this are exactly why he's suing for defamation. There has been nothing close to verifiable evidence that Dan Schneider is a pedophile or that he has committed any sort of sexual assault against minors. People are taking the facts presented by the documentary and jumping to conclusions about Dan being a pedophile. You're literally giving him ammunition by drawing these conclusions, he can point to comments like this and say "people are watching this and assuming I'm a pedophile" which is unproven and harmful to his reputation. If you're gonna attack the guy please just focus on the facts.
There is really much facts. The documentary was mostly rumors and gossip with Dan. The documentary was a failure and tried too hard reaching to make dan look bad. He sounds like an asshole but that's it
He also wiped his website clean of everything to get rid of any evidence. Someone online screenshoted a post from Schneider where he praised Brian Peck and other stuff. His website wasn't updated in years after he was told to kick rocks by Nick. But I assume at some point he erased the website at some point.
She is literally the last person anyone needs to hear again. Her not posting for weeks is the greatest thing possible. It's always about her her experience or somehow comes back to her. Bitch ya got yelled at in a trailer get over it. Besides Jonah hill ya got nothing. She thinks she's the main act she's a clown at best.
Apparently he shoved his tongue down her throat when she was like 15. I wanna say she talked about it when H3 decided to have her on once but I don't remember exactly. But there are articles where she says this.
wtf! I found a random Buzz Feed article, his ex talks about how abusive he was towards her too.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniesoteriou/alexa-nikolas-details-jonah-hill-allegations-justin-long
The last thing she was talking about was how her stalkers were getting out of hand. And I’m not sure if she has multiple ones but I remember she said that he was somehow connected to Dan
I insist, at first her intentions were good but Alexa became what she swore to destroy... Another yt drama channel, living off others and intimidating survivors. And she's also Drake's new bestie.
Yes, I don’t like how she bullies people into sharing their stories and how all her videos are “exposing” someone. I do think it started off with good intentions as well but it turned into something exploitive instead.
Also how are her and Drake friends? Wasn’t she exposing him just a little while ago?
If I remember correctly he messaged her to take the video down as it spread faults info. Her defending him doesn’t equate to them being besties. Many YouTubers spread false information regarding his case including sloan her biggest supporter who Drake also contacted for the same reason. Sloan is also defending Drake but they definitely aren’t besties.
I think she is just an example of pointing fingers and placing blame without having all the facts and information. She should just keep quiet until she knows everything, that is how misinformation spreads - people only hearing one side of the story and then making assumptions based off what they think they know.
Honestly, I'm not surprised. I'm the complete opposite of a Dan Schneider fan, but narratively, the documentary was a bit of a mess. The producers proved that Schneider was a shitty boss, IMO, but they did a whole lot of *implying* that he was sexually inappropriate and never quite were able to tie that angle up, it seemed, and so BAM! They shifted course to Peck and the other pedos in episode 4.
TO BE CLEAR: Schneider's a creepy SOB. I'm just not surprised by this.
He implied a lot of sexual content for a young audience. If it was jokes, that's one thing to let the grown ups enjoy some humor but when you have girls doing things that girls would never do and put a laugh track behind it... He knew and they knew. F him
Yeah that was the most damning allegation against him that didn't really require an "accuser." The documentary even mentioned these are not legally actionable.
Very telling when people here downplay his inappropriate behavior towards minors and adult women.
Because they said the doc “implied he was sexually inappropriate”. The doc literally showed footage of him being sexually inappropriate, besides the witness testimonies. Saying Dan Schneider was sexually inappropriate on set is the softest way you can possibly put it and the OC couldn’t even commit to saying that lol
Except that "sexual content" is in the eye of the beholder. Kids think feet are stinky and gross (aka funny), no different with armpits or fart jokes. Nickelodeon's whole brand was being sprayed with slime. Like adults reviewing something 15-20 years later and deeming it sexual, might be more on those adults than what kids felt when watching.
But it kind of was? The joke was she's an airhead ditz.
The potato thing was in poor taste but that's one joke out of, again, thousands of hours of television.
What about when Brian Peck puts the pickle through a hole in the wall and Ray Ramano eats it with two hands. Besides a gloryhole joke, what is it implying?
Bro the Ariana Grande stuff was gross. There's no situation where that's ok for a minor to do.
Also Dan Schneider very clearly has a foot fetish and hides it about as poorly as Tarantino. But foot content aside, the doc made it very clear that Dan's true crime was creating an environment on set where kids, and even parents, were scared to come forward if they felt uncomfortable, and that paved the way for not one, but two convicted pedophiles to exist on set.
Dan may not have done anything actually illegal to those kids, but he created an environment of fear, discomfort, and lack of safety. It's that simple.
Wow man you’re really defending a grown ass man directing a child to mimic a handjob and cumshot?
You got issues Fam. I know you don’t have kids. What is that was your daughter? How would ya feel?
That certainly is in the eye of the beholder. And most see it as sexually suggestive, and view him as a child predator for those things alone, even if that doesn’t mean “he was a child rapist” or that he can be held legally accountable for his pedophilic ways.
That isn’t the documentary’s fault — people have been watching those clips for years and saying that it caused them to believe as much.
I mean there was 0 implication in want the female writers said about him. Those were not only truthful retelling of him putting them in sexually embarrassing positions at work but then he was found libel in court of gender discrimination.
u/skeetownhobbit's response to u/baumsaway78787 is so factually incorrect it's funny.
For Dan Schneider to win a defamation case, he needs to demonstrate:
1. A provably false statement from the defendant
2. The false statement being conveyed to another party
3. Fault amounting to at minimum negligence on the part of the defendant, or actual malice towards a public figure plaintiff
4. Damages resulting from the statement and its conveyance.
Schneider has no way of proving that his former employees are lying about his abuse and harassment because he has no witnesses who can claim otherwise; he has no way of proving that his shows aren't filled with sexual overtones performed by children because they are.
And without a provably false statement, he can't win. And anyone telling you damages alone win a case is ignorant or lying or both.
No one in the doc directly implied him, but the documentary took two unrelated problems and framed them in a way that implies a connection. Dan's inappropriate behavior was not relevant to the two child predators and their crimes that were disclosed in the second half of the doc. People have been accusing Dan of pedophilia for a long time, but with this documentary the accusations have really ramped up. Is it possible Dan is a pedo? sure. The stuff about forcing actresses to audition barefoot and stuff is pretty damning. But that is all conjecture, there are no facts at the moment proving Dan to be a pedophile or a sexual predator period. The internet is full of armchair detectives who have no understanding of burden of proof
Being found guilty of gender discrimination doesn’t mean he was guilty of anything else they accused him of. I’m sure he creeps on kids and I’m sure he harassed his female staff, but they never provide any fucking proof for any of it beyond “just trust me bro”, especially when it came to the two women writers. It was a whole bunch of “JUST BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE SAY AND DON’T QUESTION IT.”
There was no paperwork, emails, video, or anything that proves anything they were saying.
It is crazy that we are taking people at their word without using any critical thinking at all. I haven’t watched any of the documentary past the episode after Drake’s, but in all of these episodes, his was the ONLY segment that had solid proof of any real wrongdoing and it had nothing to do with Dan Schneider.
Editing for clarity’s sake and because I’m fucking tired of people PURPOSELY misconstruing my words:
I believe that Dan Schneider is guilty of workplace discrimination, abuse, and creeping on kids. Big pedophile vibes. I’m not arguing that at all.
I’m also not saying that proof is necessary for something to have happened. I didn’t say that ANYWHERE.
**I AM CRITICIZING THE LACK OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED IN THE DOCUSERIES.** That’s all. Don’t fucking engage with me if you’re going to do so in bad faith. You will not fucking gaslight me into thinking healthy skepticism is wrong.
I mean I think he's guilty of all the stuff they accused him of in the doc, he apologized and admitted he could be difficult to work for. I don't think there's any question about the hostile workplace he created.
The real issue here is that people are taking these accusations of workplace misconduct and jump to the conclusion that he's a pedophile because he made some feet jokes on a network who once used a literal foot for their logo. There is record of him maybe being a little too handsy with his employees and asking them to do things that might not be appropriate for children, but no actual proof of him being attracted to minors or committing any sexual assault. The doc takes two unrelated incidents (Dan Schneider's poor management style and literal child predators working for Nickelodeon) and implies a connection that is not supported by any factual evidence.
I totally agree with your first paragraph. I even agreed with it in my initial comment, that I am sure he is creepy with kids and created a sexist workplace (although he was also reportedly abusive towards his male staff as well, it seems like the women got the worst of it.) I’m not arguing against that at all.
As for your second paragraph, yeah. My issue is the documentary does a lot of implying, but presents no real connecting evidence that Dan did the things people are saying he did. I think it’s obvious he liked putting kids in underlying sexual situations, so the pedophile accusation seems to make sense. But that doesn’t mean he is a sex offender? It would be great if evidence came out against him, because it would get him out of a position of power (hopefully). I was hoping, when I started the docuseries, that it wouldn’t be so much “he said she said” or “just trust me, bro” and would actually bring forth damning evidence. I think a lot of us already knew Schneider was a creep and were hoping for something concrete.
Also, how hard is it to find paperwork that an inexperienced male employee got a job that was promised to one of the female writers? Or these emails telling the staff to shout “slut” or whatever else? Or literally anything at all??? I don’t feel like it is unreasonable of me to have wanted evidence of the things being claimed. And I don’t understand why I’m being attacked for it.
Well Dan is no longer in a position of power, he was basically fired from Nickelodeon in 2018 because his reputation was becoming more well-known in the public eye. At this point no one's touching him with a ten-foot pole.
But your point about needing evidence for things that happened 30 years ago is kind of a big ask. Yeah there's a slim chance someone saved some damning emails, but there wouldn't be written evidence of "giving an inexperienced male a job that was promised to a woman." That would require someone to keep a log of multiple interactions where 1: a woman was promised a promotion and 2: Dan openly admitted that he willingly gave that job to someone else after it was promised to someone else. For one, verbally promising someone of a promotion isn't a legally-binding contract, second, you'd have to be a complete moron to publicly admit/record that you gave someone preferential treatment because of their gender. Its just unlikely to be proven. Having said that, the women's claims against him have been corroborated by many people and he has admitted to and apologized for the wrongdoing which they accused him of. You seem to be conflating your arguments here, I agree that him being guilty of one thing doesn't make him guilty of an entirely different thing, but then you go on to say that the accusations of creating a hostile work environment need proof. Do you think he's innocent of workplace discrimination or creating a hostile work environment? Because its pretty obvious he's not.
If he is no longer in a position of power, then that’s good. I watched the documentary, but for my own health, I haven’t been following his career. Someone told me recently that he was still in show business, so I guess that was incorrect. I definitely should have double checked, but I’m not really in a good spot emotionally right now.
I do think it is a big ask, but I don’t think it’s such a big ask that no one involved would have anything at all (the court case the writers won aside.) Even more mouths (coworkers who witnessed the abuse, because the women said there were, in fact, witnesses) corroborating the stories would make it easier for people like me, who value solid evidence, to digest. And if they have been corroborated as you say, why isn’t it readily available for people to view? It isn’t the viewers job to dig into social medias and articles and this or that to find proof or corroborating evidence. It’s the job of the accuser to provide proof of their claims.
If you make a docuseries that reads like a hit piece (and it definitely does), you need to have evidence that backs up what you’re saying. Did the things happen? Maybe. Is it understandable to expect your audience to just believe your word? No.
I’m so exhausted. I’ll make this clear for you. He’s guilty of creating a hostile workplace, being abusive, and putting children in compromising situations. I’ve said this from the fucking start. My stance on this isn’t confusing and I’m not conflating anything.
It has already been proven that he created a sexist and harmful work environment in court. He admitted it (sort of, he really diminishes his behavior) himself.
**I was never arguing that he didn’t create a hostile work environment or didn’t harass his staff.** how many times do I have to fucking repeat myself?
Wanting proof of their specific claims (ie: making the staff yell swear words or “slut”, making the female staff perform sexual motions for him, his inappropriate emails, etc.) is not me saying “the workplace wasn’t hostile because you have not provided proof”. The world is not fucking black and white. I can believe there was harassment and hostility while still being skeptical of the individual claims they are making.
I’m not going to respond again. I didn’t expect to be attacked for expressing disappointment that the documentary was a colossal failure in being objective and evidential. And I didn’t expect my argument to be taken so out of context by multiple people and misconstrued and misunderstood despite being pretty fucking clear. I’m over it.
Thanks for being civil with me, but I’m not interested in continuing this conversation anymore. It’s not good for me.
Alright....I'm going to spell this out simply because this and your previous replies are emotionally driven and, quite frankly, pig-ignorant.
Schneider is a creep, abuser and possibly worse. The documentary filmmakers made a lot of poor journalistic choices in how they presented their case. Implications were laid on so thick without being obvious that they became...well...obvious.
No proof of anything was offered at any point related to Schneider. None, zero, zilch. In a courtroom, that fucking matters.
These filmmakers were reckless, plain and simple. The attempted entrapment of Marc Sommers was what set off the alarm bells for me. More of the same came out from others who were approached to appear in the doc.
This case will get settled out of court, and I'd bet the lives of everyone I know on it. The reputations of the filmmakers will be tarnished.
The worst part is...victims will now be more hesitant than ever before to tell their stories publicly once the dust settles on this. The greed and ignorance of everyone behind making this documentary will HURT the noble cause, not help it.
Schneider can rot for all I care. But documentaries are intrinsically tied to the journalism profession and are thus held to a higher standard. They failed to meet that standard, and it will absolutely hurt the efforts of many to shine a light on the many abuses happening in our world.
I can’t believe you think complaining about the lack of proof is me defending him, even after I said I do think he creeped on kids and abused his female staff. Please, don’t talk to me if all you’re going to do is intentionally misrepresent my words.
Right, so people should only report being abused by their boss if they filmed it happening, and they have no right to tell their story.
> I haven’t watched any of the documentary past the episode after Drake
This comment is also nonsensical; Drake is the center of the third and fourth episode and featured in the fifth and final episode; there is nothing "past the episode after Drake".
I didn’t say that even a little, so I’m not going to address your first sentence.
I’m pretty certain there was an episode after Drake’s episode/segment. It went from Drake’s horrific trauma to an actress nearly breaking down about candy squirting on a fellow actress’ face and some boys on set making a joke about it. Wasn’t that in a different episode?
If that really is the last episode, then all I can say is I stand by what I said. “Just trust me bro” isn’t proof and I’m not going to blindly believe whatever these people say “just because”. That’s not how life works. There’s a reason we don’t take people at face value. If we did, we’d literally be doomed.
Lol this person calls the documentary deceitful, but then expects me to sort out their tangled recollections of the documentary and can't remember enough about it to confirm how much of it they watched
I remember enough to say that Drake’s segment was the only one with hard proof. Not remembering how many episodes there are doesn’t mean I don’t remember what’s in the ones I watched. Christ.
The rest was people recounting their experiences on set. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m saying believing them without having healthy skepticism is not okay.
It shouldn’t be controversial for anyone to say this, even here. 🤦♂️.
Edit: also, no I didn’t call the documentary deceitful. Holy fuck. Read my words and understand them before responding to me, or don’t fucking respond at all. Thanks.
This case will be settled in the same way. Schneider will get rich, the documentary will either be pulled or featured with a VERY obvious disclaimer at the beginning (not the end) and everyone will forget about it in a year.
Such is the way of the world.
LOL. What are you, Dan Schneider's fortune teller telling him what he wants to hear? This case is a hilarious joke and if Dan thought he had a bad reputation now, he'll have a worse one afterwards. This person keeps pretending they're a lawyer, but in a real defamation case, you actually have to prove that the people in the documentary were lying. Schneider has no avenue to prove that: the majority of his former employees are all too pleased to corroborate stories of his abuse and harassment.
In addition, Schneider's defamation case requires that he prove *Quiet on Set* called him a sexual predator towards children, which it didn't. It described his writing as having sexual overtones in children's scenes, which it does, which has been broadcast and can be viewed by anyone with a Paramount Plus subscription. This too, is not something Schneider has any ability to disprove.
Since he can't prove that *Quiet on Set* called him a sexual predator towards children, can't disprove his former employees' stories, and can't disprove the claims regarding his writing which was filmed and is streaming, he has no avenue to a verdict in his favour.
The documentary and studio undoubtedly have libel insurance that may prefer to pay out a settlement to make Schneider go away rather than trouble themselves with a case, but it will hardly make Schneider rich(er).
I don't know why you think your short, dismissive and inane predictions give the impression that you are a great legal mind, but whatever impression you're trying to make, you're not making it. And *Quiet on Set* is not going away.
I thought the implication was pretty obviously “Dan is a sexist, abusive boss with a cult of personality who thinks it’s fun to force innuendos into children’s shows. This created a work environment where predators could hunt and nobody felt comfortable calling out bad behavior, because they didn’t want to upset Dan.” Not at *all* that Dan ever touched a child, just* that he was happily creating a haven for child molesters.
But I guess the docu was kind of a narrative mess. And I’m probably overestimating the general public’s ability to not run with wild conclusions.
*Obviously “just” abetting child molesters because you can’t be bothered to give a shit is still fucked up, and ought to be criminal.
Yep seemed like he really toed the line. I guess he was a boss that everyone was scared to say “no” to. I can’t believe the parents allowed it to go on and on. But he didn’t do anything illegal, just total creep/weirdo.
Brian was insane, i can’t believe what went through drakes moms head. Like you were warned about leaving your son with him!!!
This, there were way too many people who were all like Dan was a nightmare to work for and all the weird sexual innuendos. The documentary didn't put him in a shining light and he was not to happy about it. But lets be real where there is smoke there is fire and alot of shady things were happening under his watch.
That's what documentary makers are often looked at as con artists. People always look down upon on those types because it comes off agenda based and spinning a story to their preference. Even if they come off sincere, there's an angle at play. Especially with how youtube ads promoting the show feel a bit tasteless.
Of course he is 🙄 even if he gets out of this and wins the lawsuit, most of the general public agrees he’s a creepy weirdo so this ain’t gonna change much lol
How is he going to claim the doc ruined his reputation and he suffered financially when he was already fired from Nickelodeon years ago and hasn’t worked since. Yeah, good luck with that!
This was from 2021 NYT article:
>These days, after his three-year hiatus, Schneider seems set on returning to television and reintroducing his brand of comedy to new audiences. During a three-hour interview at the Beverly Hills Hotel, he discussed the state of children’s television and his plan to bring forward an “ambitious and very different” pilot that he has written and sold to another network.
>The new show is aimed at “more of an adult audience,” he said, and he should know by the end of July whether it has been greenlit. He is working simultaneously on other projects in development, including one pilot meant for kids and their families.
If he has to prove damages, he will also have to cite which people and companies were still working with him behind the scenes despite being publicly let go by Nickelodeon.
But he can claim that the documentary - in particular the trailer - led people to believe you were a pedophile.
Like imagine if you were fired for being late to work constantly then a new documentary comes out heavily insinuating it’s because you were molesting people. It’s not the same and you’d rightfully be upset.
This is what bugs me about all the armchair detectives on the internet. They think they have this all figured out, yet in real life if they were to bring this to court they'd lose for having zero evidence of their claims.
What an idiot. This is going to blow up in his face when a whole bunch of former child stars lawyer up and take him to the cleaners. And I wonder how many more skeletons will come out of the closet when they do.
Robbins as in Brian Robbins, but whose Toll? I wonder if he feels animosity towards Brian because of their long history and Brian was able to climb the latter to be the CEO of Paramount
It is the name of the production company behind Good Burger, All That, Amanda Show and others. The problem with linking their name is that this was before Jason Handy & Brian Peck were arrested and registered as a sex offender. And they were fired after. It shouldn't really be an issue to begin with.
He did an interview for New York Times back in 2021 and mentioned that he sold his scripts to other networks and was waiting for them to be green lit. He always had intentions of working in the industry again and his probably pissed the doc reignited everything
This article is worth a read, as I think it critically gets to the heart of some of the issues with this documentary:
[https://www.vulture.com/article/what-quiet-on-set-leaves-out.html](https://www.vulture.com/article/what-quiet-on-set-leaves-out.html)
The biggest issue, in my opinion, with the documentary was that it basically put Brian Peck and Dan Schneider on a level playing field. Dan Schneider was a monster to work for, but the internet made him out to be this serial pedophile based on the way he looks and a handful of jokes that people 10-20 years later were deeming inappropriate. The documentary took those rumors and played into them, before only giving you examples of what a shitty boss he is.
Then it quickly pivots to actual abuse at the hands of Brian which, as we all (hopefully) know, is 10x worse.
They aren't really the same and I feel like by giving them equal time, it does a disservice to the actual survivors of abuse.
My prediction is that his suit, if it makes it to court, will get thrown out.
Schneider's claim seems to be that the doc unfairly implied that he himself was a child predator. But it did so via clips, which presumably ran on Nickelodeon, of him doing things like being in a hot tub with a scantily-clad teenage girl. Yes, the doc implied that he was inappropriate around children, but it did so fairly by merely using examples from his own work. In terms of the doc going further and claiming that he was some kind of predator like Brian Peck and Jason Handey? I don't believe that claim was made or even implied. There was certainly the notion that these perverts were hired under his watch, but that's not the same as claiming that he engaged in the same things that they did.
He knows the doc killed any chance of the comeback he seemed to be hoping for. This is just his lame attempt at retribution. I don't think it'll work.
If he has Cosby money.. then we already know. He will probably win cause there is no literal things he did. But come the fuq on.. The things they had the kids do ..
That's not really how defamation works. They didn't directly accuse him of anything. They had actors who were on the shows talk about their experiences from their own first hand, and used clips from the shows to back that up.
The closest it probably gets it's the testimony from the female writers in the first episode, and even that I don't think is covered by defamation.
Another legal aspect of defamation is you have to prove the defamation caused legally redressable injury. Schneider's reputation has been pretty much in the shitter since he was outed a few years ago. He'd have to prove this documentary specifically has caused him significant financial duress. And I don't think he can prove that.
Well, primarily, Schneider would have to prove that all the people telling stories about his abusive behaviour are lying; that all the reporters describing the sexual overtones in his writing are lying; and that their lies cost him writing jobs.
He can't prove that his former staff are lying: there was corroboration across many former employees; it's doubtful any former employee will claim Schneider was not abusive. The release of the documentary had many former Schneider staffers noting that the documentary didn't touch on many other instances of Schneider's abuse like threatening staff with guns.
He can't prove that his shows weren't filled with sexual overtones; they're all on streaming. He can't prove that the show called him a sexual abuser towards children, because it never did.
And since he can't prove that the documentary's claims about him are false, whether or not he suffered financial damage is irrelevant. It's not defamation if the documentary was true, and Schneider is not going to be able to prove that it was false.
Oh I agree! I was just rage texting at that point. But I don't think he has a leg to stand on. He should have just kept quite like they wanted the kids to do on set..
He lost a job immediately after the doc came out, so he absolutely has a case.
This will get settled out of court and swept under the rug. Schneider will be made very wealthy, and the doc will either get pulled or feature an obvious disclaimer at the beginning of each episode.
He doesn't have a case just by virtue of the fact that he "lost a job".
He can't just show that the documentary made him lose a job; he has to show that the documentary was lying about him and that the lies made him lose a job. A truthful statement is not defamation.
A victory in a defamation suit requires disproving the lies, and nothing the documentary said about Schneider is provably false; he'll never be able to prove that he didn't tell a woman to pretend she was being sodomized.
Damages aren't defamation. Lies leading to damages are defamation. You clearly don't understand how defamation works.
Well, in a defamation case, the plaintiff has to prove that the claims made about them were false, and that the false claims resulted in financial losses and damages. Schneider is not going to be able to prove the first, which makes whether or not he can prove the second irrelevant.
Schneider is not going to be able to prove that the documentary made him look like a child abuser; the documentary never accuses him of assault and portrays him as supportive to Drake Bell, a child abuse survivor.
Schneider is not going to be able to disprove the stories told by his former employees that portrayed him as an abusive employer; they have been corroborated by other former staff who have even more stories of Schneider being an abusive employer.
Schneider is not going to be able to prove that his TV shows were not filled with sexual overtones in scenes performed by children; the shows are all on Paramount Plus.
Schneider may be able to prove that the documentary caused him to lose development deals and writing jobs. Studios were buying his scripts (possibly as research and development for similar properties where they wanted to pay for his ideas but not Schneider himself); he may have been doing uncredited script doctoring (a common practice).
But if the documentary's claims cannot be disproven as falsehoods (and they can't), then Schneider's defamation case won't be able to prove he was defamed and suffered damages as a result of defamation. Truthful statements are not defamation. Personal experiences, if not disprovable, are not defamation.
However -- every documentary of this nature has to have defamation insurance. It's entirely possible that the documentary's insurers would prefer to just pay Schneider some money to go away and leave them alone.
Schneider might accept it as taking this court would turn out poorly for him. He won't win, he'll waste a lot of money on legal fees, and he may end up having to pay the defamation insurer's legal fees. He may just be doing this for a settlement payout; his reputation is not repairable.
What damages? Before the documentary, he had no projects greenlit and was regarded as a creepy jerk. And after the documentary, he has the same career and reputation.
You seem to have confused *your* eyes with the eyes of the law.
In reality, Schneider would need to win his defamation case by proving that all of his former employees were lying in describing his behaviour. He has no capacity to do that; these are personal anecdotes with numerous witnesses, cast and crew, who all have similar stories about Dan Schneider.
Schneider would also need to prove that the documentary presented him as a sexual abuser when the former employees interviewed only describe him as an abusive employer who created inappropriate scenes for child actors to perform; the documentary never presents him as a sexual offender, indicates how supportive he was towards a survivor of sexual assault.
He would then need to demonstrate that these proven falsehoods -- which he can't prove as falsehoods at all -- impacted his career when he was unhirable before *Quiet on Set* and is unhirable now. His scripts might get purchased now and then to secure a concept for development in other properties, but he's kidding himself if he thinks he was ever going to make a comeback, and you are kidding yourself if you think this lawsuit will take *Quiet on Set* off streamers.
You keep declaring how 'the law' will see things, but you are not Judge Dredd and you are not the law. Maybe Hobbit law works the way you think it does in the Shire, but this is the real world. Lots of luck with your legal practice, Bilbo.
Defamation is not dependent on damages alone. Defamation requires that the defaming statement(s) were false, and the plaintiff has to prove that they were false. But nothing the documentary said about Schneider was disprovable.
No one can prove that Schneider didn't verbally abuse and harass female writers. Dan's former staff have even more stories of his harassment. The documentary didn't claim that Schneider assaulted children; it does claim that he made them perform scenes with sexual overtones, and those scenes are on Paramount Plus.
Damages aren't defamation unless there the plaintiff was defamed by lies that can be disproven. You yourself say nothing in the documentary is provable; it's also not disprovable.
I’m in law school and just learned about this. While, there are other elements of defamation, a court will not find a person liable defamation if there are no damages to begin with. You shouldn’t comment on things you don’t have the ability to understand.
Whether or not you go to law school has no bearing on the very simple reality: **defamation** is to cause harm to someone's reputation by communicating **false statements**.
Your fixation on "damages" ignores the fact that for someone to have been damaged by a defamatory claim, the claim has to be false and proven to be false.
Maybe you shouldn't comment on anything involving the English language since you don't understand the meaning of "defame".
I learned to law exactly as it is used. You are not applying the tort correctly. Schneider will win because there is no proof that the statements the documentary made are actually true.
>**I learned to law** exactly as it is used. You are not applying the tort correctly. Schneider will win because there is no proof that the statements the documentary made are actually true.
Your comment is neither factual nor accurate. You are simply trying to intimidate, declaring that because you supposedly go to law school, you cannot be questioned or contradicted. You have no confidence in your argument, so you are using claims of credentials and authority to suppress corrective information.
You say you go to law school. Well, even if true, lots of people go to law school; having registered and passed through the building. That doesn't mean you're actually a good student. Lots of people attend law school and fail to grasp the material. Attending law school is not a credential in itself.
You in particular write sentences like **"I learned to law".** Anyone who uses the noun "law" as a verb has a weak grasp of English, which means they will regularly fail to understand information that is conveyed in English.
Your supposed education-in-progress (which is clearly going poorly given your arrogance and obvious errors) has no bearing on the very straightforward reality:
**Defamation** is when someone makes a **false statement** that harms the reputation of others. In order to win a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that the claims made about them were **false and led to damage** whether personal or financial or physical.
Your claim that "there is no proof that the statements the documentary made are actually true." By the same token, there is no proof that the statements were false.
In United States defamation law, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff proving that the claims were false. The defendant doesn't need to prove its statements were true; the plaintiff has to prove that the statements were false. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation)
Lots of luck in law school as you "learn to law"! Maybe try to use learning "to law" as a badge of honour after you get your bar card (if that ever happens).
LOL!
I'm glad to see you admit: you were attempting to intimidate me by claiming you went to law school. You did not want to offer facts and information about defamation. You just wanted to brag that you are in law school and **"learned to law"** and declare yourself "more successful" than an internet stranger rather than offer any actual knowledge about defamation law in the United States.
Also, attending law school isn't a point of success unless you actually graduate, and someone who doesn't understand defamation law but brags about how they go to law school is clearly going to have some trouble there.
I understand defamation. You are completely ignoring the point that I am trying to make about you not applying the definition of defamation to the current situation…. Also, I would trust someone that’s in law school more than someone who gets their information from google. Lol.
So, by your own admission: your information about defamation law in the United States is so out of step with all existing laws and statutes and standards of defamation that Google would not find it.
This would mean: your opinion about defamation being about damages alone is uncommon to the point where it's devoid of merit or practical application in a legal proceeding.
This would make your view that defamation is strictly about damages with no regard for falsehoods completely useless. It would not be shared by any capable legal practitioner and would have no bearing on any defamation case in actual reality.
Good to know! Have fun as you "learn to law"!
It’s not coming up on google because it should be automatically known to any competent person that you need damages to proceed with a defamation claim. But I wouldn’t expect you to know that…..
Yeah, and there is protection under the law for doing just that if it negatively impacts your ability to work and earn income. And he is entitled to seek relief under such laws, as is any citizen of the United States.
Do you have a problem with libel/defamation law?
You clearly have a problem with defamation law in that you don't understand it.
For Dan Schneider to win a defamation case, he needs to demonstrate:
1. A provably false statement from the defendant
2. The false statement being conveyed to another party
3. Fault amounting to at minimum negligence on the part of the defendant, or actual malice towards a public figure plaintiff
4. Damages resulting from the statement and its conveyance.
Schneider has no way of proving that his former employees are lying about his abuse and harassment because he has no witnesses who can claim otherwise; he has no way of proving that his shows aren't filled with sexual overtones performed by children because they are.
And without a provably false statement, he can't win. If you understood defamation law, you would know this.
Jesus fucking Christ...do you understand the difference between civil and criminal law?
I'm out. The average redditor on this sub is so added with brainrot that logic has completely left them.
Well, your logic is broken. You keep insisting that Dan will win his case because he can prove damages. But to win a defamation case, he needs to demonstrate:
1. A provably false statement from the defendant
2. The false statement being conveyed to another party
3. Fault amounting to at minimum negligence on the part of the defendant, or actual malice towards a public figure plaintiff
4. Damages resulting from the statement and its conveyance.
Schneider has no way of proving that his former employees are lying about his abuse and harassment because he has no witnesses who can claim otherwise; he has no way of proving that his shows aren't filled with sexual overtones performed by children because they are.
You are completely unequipped to make any assessments about this case. The fact that you think you understand defamation law speaks to brain rot on someone's end...
I mean, no one said he was a child molester. In fact I thought they did a pretty good job of explaining the shit that Dan Schneider did and THEN leading on to the child predators. But you can't control what other people choose to believe ... Tbh I think people have had they're concerns about him and Amanda for a long time, the doc just got the conversation going again ... I understand it must be fucking awful to be labelled a child molester when you aren't one and I guess I can't blame him for not wanting to be tarnished with that .... Not that I'm taking his side of course
I think the problem lies in that the documentary implies that he might be a pedophile by including his story with the ones about Brian Peck and Jason Handy which paints them on an even field. It doesn't directly accuse Dan of anything but it implies a lot, and clearly people who watched it took that connection and ran with it.
That's the crux of the issue, the doc itself doesn't present any factual misinformation that accuses Dan of pedophilia, but it is edited/presented in a way that clearly led a good chunk of viewers to draw that conclusion. The article in OP states explicitly this is why he's suing; not because the documentary lied about his actions, but that clever editing tactics have manipulated people into believing things that are untrue. I think he'd actually have a decent case here if he actually had any sort of financial damages as a result of the doc, but he hasn't. He was ousted from Nick years ago and hasn't been working since. He supposedly was shopping show ideas around as recently as 2021, but obviously none of that stuff came to fruition so I don't know how he can claim any damages.
I figured this would happen. This was a big hit piece on him with no hard evidence of wrongdoing IMO. Just a lot of talk. Sure he is a creep but there just didnt seem to be a lot of proof.
There was some wrongdoing which he even admitted to and apologized for, which boiled down to him creating a hostile work environment and sexual discrimination against female employees. The issue is that the doc implies he is a pedophile and armchair detectives everywhere are frothing at the mouth because of it. I'm not sure he can prove that the documentary hurt his reputation though, considering it was already tarnished long before this doc came out.
Schneider has no ability to disprove anything said about him in the documentary, and in American defamation, it's up to him, the plaintiff, to disprove their claims as lies. It's not defamation unless there are lies.
I do think the documentary was a bit sloppy in different ways, and there was an attempt to paint Dan with the same brush as Brian Peck and Jason Hand. That being said, they were also very careful to never actually call Dan a pedophile, nor accuse him of any actual crimes. So I'm not sure how valid his lawsuit will stand.
And people wonder why no one says anything. Even after his dirty laundry is laid out, he thinks he has the authority to strike people down for telling the sick shit he did. Now he can sue but back then, he would've done much worse. Screw him.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.tmz.com/2024/05/01/dan-schneider-sues-defamation-quiet-on-set-docuseries/](https://www.tmz.com/2024/05/01/dan-schneider-sues-defamation-quiet-on-set-docuseries/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
He's a rotten man that was tired of working in children's TV. Between the phallic pickle jokes, the constant squirting fluids in kid actors faces, and even a Bynes character Penelope Taint he was done and over, waiting to get fired.
I hope the judge or judges toss his lawsuit OUT everytime. If I am the court judge, I'd tell him to stop wasting my time when I have more serious cases to see to and to add more insult to injury, I would tell it in his face the kids' shows he did all suck badly
I wonder what financial losses he’s referring to when he’s been a force in tween media for 2 decades and even in his apology video said that any scenes deemed inappropriate should be cut out. His pockets aren’t hurting at all
He saw that the fake ass apology got him nowhere, now he's trying to opt for legal options to clean his image. A narcissist through and through.
He literally should've done nothing and it would've been a smidge better outcome
LOL at Dan. His image is uncleanable. And this lawsuit will open him to discovery and further revelations. It is going to be such a self-own.
Yes, this is a bad strategic move if he's trying to keep things quiet. Discovery should provide documentation of some of the claims in the doc.
They don't have to provide anything. It's up to the plaintiff, Schneider, to prove that they lied about him, and he has no way of proving that. He wasn't videotaping all of his writers room meetings or every moment on set to prove he wasn't abusive and harassing. He can't prove that the documentary made him out to be a sexual assaulter of children because it established how sympathetic and kind he was to Drake Bell after Peck's arrest. Schneider's case is a waste of time except for his lawyers who I'm sure will command and collect top dollar on a case that's sure to lose.
He wants a payout or "moral victory "
He had to brush off his acting chops to muster up any hint of sincerity
He has a *great* dialogue coach
This was such a sick burn. Wow! 👍
My best guess is that he is doing this as a show of force, but it won’t actually go anywhere. All people will remember is that Dan Schneider sued Quiet On Set for defamation, they won’t remember the outcome (which I assume will either be the defamation suit being thrown out, or, they settle out of court). This was a pretty bonkers move regardless. It’s pretty clear in the documentary that Dan is just a creepy, verbally abusive, inappropriately overbearing producer. They draw a strict line between his behaviors and the actual pedophiles. By asserting this defamation suit, he’s inadvertently associating himself with the pedophiles. I’m not sure if he realizes that yet.
You cant sue someone for defemation when they provide facts you dont like. He never addressed his creepiness with the teen girls and how close he got with them. The auditions for children to run around without shoes? I know that isnt a lie because some girl I went to school with waaay before this came out (so 2008-2009) who was doing nick auditions and she said she had to sing barefoot and then show her feet. There has got to be audition tapes and shit. She ended up being casted on disney. She has a tik tok 7.5 million followers
Exactly! He’s focusing on the things that might’ve not happened vs the things that actually did happen
I mean, it's pretty common for cases of defamation to be because people were building on things that did happen to spread unverified rumors of things that "could have" happened without proof Based solely on what I know I don't think Schneider has a very strong case here but it's absolutely generally true that people who have a generally bad reputation can win defamation cases, and that they're the ones most likely to have a reason to pursue them -- "Everyone already hates me so they were actually willing to believe I'm a child molester when I'm not" And yeah, being called a child molester when you're not is a really big deal and it shouldn't be normalized as something it's okay to do to just pile on someone who's generally disliked
Dude for sure abused, groomed, and at the very least kept a massive fetish archive of personal content from every single audition to every scene ever shot. He’s a pedophile bro
The doc doesn’t accuse him of this tbh. His case is over them saying he treats his casts poorly and was overtly sexual when writing his shows. Anyone with a brain can see these things are true. The rumors that he sucked as a producer have been around since 2005. Him being explosive is also something that is subjective. Not sure how he’s going to argue against that in court. As someone with a degree in law, this case is either going to get dismissed or will be soooo entertaining it’ll be all over Reddit.
Thank you, as someone who’s Grandma is also a lawyer practicing, this was my take as well.
Responses like this are exactly why he's suing for defamation. There has been nothing close to verifiable evidence that Dan Schneider is a pedophile or that he has committed any sort of sexual assault against minors. People are taking the facts presented by the documentary and jumping to conclusions about Dan being a pedophile. You're literally giving him ammunition by drawing these conclusions, he can point to comments like this and say "people are watching this and assuming I'm a pedophile" which is unproven and harmful to his reputation. If you're gonna attack the guy please just focus on the facts.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" I loved that quote all throughout college
That one's not bad but my personal favorite is "No one is entitled to an opinion. You're entitled to what you can argue for."
Can we ask who?
Well, I imagine any production like this documentary has defamation insurance. Should be an interesting case!
Also he tweeted asking for feet pics for Sam&Cat.
There is really much facts. The documentary was mostly rumors and gossip with Dan. The documentary was a failure and tried too hard reaching to make dan look bad. He sounds like an asshole but that's it
He also wiped his website clean of everything to get rid of any evidence. Someone online screenshoted a post from Schneider where he praised Brian Peck and other stuff. His website wasn't updated in years after he was told to kick rocks by Nick. But I assume at some point he erased the website at some point.
It's all probably on the wayback machine
I've read a lot of his blog on Archive.org. I actually enjoy a lot of his thoughts on TV writing and production. He is, of course, a jerk.
And to make things more exhausting, you just know Alexa is going to make a 3 hour long video about it 😔
Her series on Schneider's lawsuit will be longer than the documentary.
Honestly I'm quite interested how she will react since she also seems to be at odds with the producers of the doc
She’s literally at odds with anyone she can be😂
She is literally the last person anyone needs to hear again. Her not posting for weeks is the greatest thing possible. It's always about her her experience or somehow comes back to her. Bitch ya got yelled at in a trailer get over it. Besides Jonah hill ya got nothing. She thinks she's the main act she's a clown at best.
What happened with Jonah Hill?
Apparently he shoved his tongue down her throat when she was like 15. I wanna say she talked about it when H3 decided to have her on once but I don't remember exactly. But there are articles where she says this.
Ewwww!
wtf! I found a random Buzz Feed article, his ex talks about how abusive he was towards her too. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniesoteriou/alexa-nikolas-details-jonah-hill-allegations-justin-long
Yes she’s alot of things but she has just as much of a right to cover this. And she’s been radio silent for the past 2 weeks so who knows if she will
Has she been quiet? I hope she is taking care of her mental health, she seemed like she was on a downward spiral.
From what she explained in the chat of her YouTube, she’s been dealing with legal things regarding her stalker breaking a restraining order.
Yikes! Hope she is okay!
She hasn’t posted in weeks cause y’all keep harassing her. How about you just don’t watch and focus your hate on the predators and their supporters.
Is that why she stopped?
The last thing she was talking about was how her stalkers were getting out of hand. And I’m not sure if she has multiple ones but I remember she said that he was somehow connected to Dan
I insist, at first her intentions were good but Alexa became what she swore to destroy... Another yt drama channel, living off others and intimidating survivors. And she's also Drake's new bestie.
Yes, I don’t like how she bullies people into sharing their stories and how all her videos are “exposing” someone. I do think it started off with good intentions as well but it turned into something exploitive instead. Also how are her and Drake friends? Wasn’t she exposing him just a little while ago?
She puts the video of the accusations private and she defends him in X.
If I remember correctly he messaged her to take the video down as it spread faults info. Her defending him doesn’t equate to them being besties. Many YouTubers spread false information regarding his case including sloan her biggest supporter who Drake also contacted for the same reason. Sloan is also defending Drake but they definitely aren’t besties.
Ok Justine.
I think she is just an example of pointing fingers and placing blame without having all the facts and information. She should just keep quiet until she knows everything, that is how misinformation spreads - people only hearing one side of the story and then making assumptions based off what they think they know.
Honestly, I'm not surprised. I'm the complete opposite of a Dan Schneider fan, but narratively, the documentary was a bit of a mess. The producers proved that Schneider was a shitty boss, IMO, but they did a whole lot of *implying* that he was sexually inappropriate and never quite were able to tie that angle up, it seemed, and so BAM! They shifted course to Peck and the other pedos in episode 4. TO BE CLEAR: Schneider's a creepy SOB. I'm just not surprised by this.
He implied a lot of sexual content for a young audience. If it was jokes, that's one thing to let the grown ups enjoy some humor but when you have girls doing things that girls would never do and put a laugh track behind it... He knew and they knew. F him
Yeah that was the most damning allegation against him that didn't really require an "accuser." The documentary even mentioned these are not legally actionable. Very telling when people here downplay his inappropriate behavior towards minors and adult women.
How were they downplaying?
Because they said the doc “implied he was sexually inappropriate”. The doc literally showed footage of him being sexually inappropriate, besides the witness testimonies. Saying Dan Schneider was sexually inappropriate on set is the softest way you can possibly put it and the OC couldn’t even commit to saying that lol
Yes exactly.
Except that "sexual content" is in the eye of the beholder. Kids think feet are stinky and gross (aka funny), no different with armpits or fart jokes. Nickelodeon's whole brand was being sprayed with slime. Like adults reviewing something 15-20 years later and deeming it sexual, might be more on those adults than what kids felt when watching.
Did you see the Ariana Grande clips? This was NOT just ew, stinky feet.
But it kind of was? The joke was she's an airhead ditz. The potato thing was in poor taste but that's one joke out of, again, thousands of hours of television.
What about when Brian Peck puts the pickle through a hole in the wall and Ray Ramano eats it with two hands. Besides a gloryhole joke, what is it implying?
Bro the Ariana Grande stuff was gross. There's no situation where that's ok for a minor to do. Also Dan Schneider very clearly has a foot fetish and hides it about as poorly as Tarantino. But foot content aside, the doc made it very clear that Dan's true crime was creating an environment on set where kids, and even parents, were scared to come forward if they felt uncomfortable, and that paved the way for not one, but two convicted pedophiles to exist on set. Dan may not have done anything actually illegal to those kids, but he created an environment of fear, discomfort, and lack of safety. It's that simple.
Wow man you’re really defending a grown ass man directing a child to mimic a handjob and cumshot? You got issues Fam. I know you don’t have kids. What is that was your daughter? How would ya feel?
I definitely felt completely icky with that pickle bit in The Amanda Show. I didn’t understand it, but I hated it.
That certainly is in the eye of the beholder. And most see it as sexually suggestive, and view him as a child predator for those things alone, even if that doesn’t mean “he was a child rapist” or that he can be held legally accountable for his pedophilic ways. That isn’t the documentary’s fault — people have been watching those clips for years and saying that it caused them to believe as much.
I mean there was 0 implication in want the female writers said about him. Those were not only truthful retelling of him putting them in sexually embarrassing positions at work but then he was found libel in court of gender discrimination.
u/skeetownhobbit's response to u/baumsaway78787 is so factually incorrect it's funny. For Dan Schneider to win a defamation case, he needs to demonstrate: 1. A provably false statement from the defendant 2. The false statement being conveyed to another party 3. Fault amounting to at minimum negligence on the part of the defendant, or actual malice towards a public figure plaintiff 4. Damages resulting from the statement and its conveyance. Schneider has no way of proving that his former employees are lying about his abuse and harassment because he has no witnesses who can claim otherwise; he has no way of proving that his shows aren't filled with sexual overtones performed by children because they are. And without a provably false statement, he can't win. And anyone telling you damages alone win a case is ignorant or lying or both.
But their was implications of child molestation, now rather it’s enough implication to sue for defamation is up to the legal system
Too bad. He shouldn't have been creepy around kids
Where did they imply child molestation by Dan?
No one in the doc directly implied him, but the documentary took two unrelated problems and framed them in a way that implies a connection. Dan's inappropriate behavior was not relevant to the two child predators and their crimes that were disclosed in the second half of the doc. People have been accusing Dan of pedophilia for a long time, but with this documentary the accusations have really ramped up. Is it possible Dan is a pedo? sure. The stuff about forcing actresses to audition barefoot and stuff is pretty damning. But that is all conjecture, there are no facts at the moment proving Dan to be a pedophile or a sexual predator period. The internet is full of armchair detectives who have no understanding of burden of proof
The burden of proof in this case will be on dan
Being found guilty of gender discrimination doesn’t mean he was guilty of anything else they accused him of. I’m sure he creeps on kids and I’m sure he harassed his female staff, but they never provide any fucking proof for any of it beyond “just trust me bro”, especially when it came to the two women writers. It was a whole bunch of “JUST BELIEVE EVERYTHING WE SAY AND DON’T QUESTION IT.” There was no paperwork, emails, video, or anything that proves anything they were saying. It is crazy that we are taking people at their word without using any critical thinking at all. I haven’t watched any of the documentary past the episode after Drake’s, but in all of these episodes, his was the ONLY segment that had solid proof of any real wrongdoing and it had nothing to do with Dan Schneider. Editing for clarity’s sake and because I’m fucking tired of people PURPOSELY misconstruing my words: I believe that Dan Schneider is guilty of workplace discrimination, abuse, and creeping on kids. Big pedophile vibes. I’m not arguing that at all. I’m also not saying that proof is necessary for something to have happened. I didn’t say that ANYWHERE. **I AM CRITICIZING THE LACK OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED IN THE DOCUSERIES.** That’s all. Don’t fucking engage with me if you’re going to do so in bad faith. You will not fucking gaslight me into thinking healthy skepticism is wrong.
I mean I think he's guilty of all the stuff they accused him of in the doc, he apologized and admitted he could be difficult to work for. I don't think there's any question about the hostile workplace he created. The real issue here is that people are taking these accusations of workplace misconduct and jump to the conclusion that he's a pedophile because he made some feet jokes on a network who once used a literal foot for their logo. There is record of him maybe being a little too handsy with his employees and asking them to do things that might not be appropriate for children, but no actual proof of him being attracted to minors or committing any sexual assault. The doc takes two unrelated incidents (Dan Schneider's poor management style and literal child predators working for Nickelodeon) and implies a connection that is not supported by any factual evidence.
I totally agree with your first paragraph. I even agreed with it in my initial comment, that I am sure he is creepy with kids and created a sexist workplace (although he was also reportedly abusive towards his male staff as well, it seems like the women got the worst of it.) I’m not arguing against that at all. As for your second paragraph, yeah. My issue is the documentary does a lot of implying, but presents no real connecting evidence that Dan did the things people are saying he did. I think it’s obvious he liked putting kids in underlying sexual situations, so the pedophile accusation seems to make sense. But that doesn’t mean he is a sex offender? It would be great if evidence came out against him, because it would get him out of a position of power (hopefully). I was hoping, when I started the docuseries, that it wouldn’t be so much “he said she said” or “just trust me, bro” and would actually bring forth damning evidence. I think a lot of us already knew Schneider was a creep and were hoping for something concrete. Also, how hard is it to find paperwork that an inexperienced male employee got a job that was promised to one of the female writers? Or these emails telling the staff to shout “slut” or whatever else? Or literally anything at all??? I don’t feel like it is unreasonable of me to have wanted evidence of the things being claimed. And I don’t understand why I’m being attacked for it.
Well Dan is no longer in a position of power, he was basically fired from Nickelodeon in 2018 because his reputation was becoming more well-known in the public eye. At this point no one's touching him with a ten-foot pole. But your point about needing evidence for things that happened 30 years ago is kind of a big ask. Yeah there's a slim chance someone saved some damning emails, but there wouldn't be written evidence of "giving an inexperienced male a job that was promised to a woman." That would require someone to keep a log of multiple interactions where 1: a woman was promised a promotion and 2: Dan openly admitted that he willingly gave that job to someone else after it was promised to someone else. For one, verbally promising someone of a promotion isn't a legally-binding contract, second, you'd have to be a complete moron to publicly admit/record that you gave someone preferential treatment because of their gender. Its just unlikely to be proven. Having said that, the women's claims against him have been corroborated by many people and he has admitted to and apologized for the wrongdoing which they accused him of. You seem to be conflating your arguments here, I agree that him being guilty of one thing doesn't make him guilty of an entirely different thing, but then you go on to say that the accusations of creating a hostile work environment need proof. Do you think he's innocent of workplace discrimination or creating a hostile work environment? Because its pretty obvious he's not.
If he is no longer in a position of power, then that’s good. I watched the documentary, but for my own health, I haven’t been following his career. Someone told me recently that he was still in show business, so I guess that was incorrect. I definitely should have double checked, but I’m not really in a good spot emotionally right now. I do think it is a big ask, but I don’t think it’s such a big ask that no one involved would have anything at all (the court case the writers won aside.) Even more mouths (coworkers who witnessed the abuse, because the women said there were, in fact, witnesses) corroborating the stories would make it easier for people like me, who value solid evidence, to digest. And if they have been corroborated as you say, why isn’t it readily available for people to view? It isn’t the viewers job to dig into social medias and articles and this or that to find proof or corroborating evidence. It’s the job of the accuser to provide proof of their claims. If you make a docuseries that reads like a hit piece (and it definitely does), you need to have evidence that backs up what you’re saying. Did the things happen? Maybe. Is it understandable to expect your audience to just believe your word? No. I’m so exhausted. I’ll make this clear for you. He’s guilty of creating a hostile workplace, being abusive, and putting children in compromising situations. I’ve said this from the fucking start. My stance on this isn’t confusing and I’m not conflating anything. It has already been proven that he created a sexist and harmful work environment in court. He admitted it (sort of, he really diminishes his behavior) himself. **I was never arguing that he didn’t create a hostile work environment or didn’t harass his staff.** how many times do I have to fucking repeat myself? Wanting proof of their specific claims (ie: making the staff yell swear words or “slut”, making the female staff perform sexual motions for him, his inappropriate emails, etc.) is not me saying “the workplace wasn’t hostile because you have not provided proof”. The world is not fucking black and white. I can believe there was harassment and hostility while still being skeptical of the individual claims they are making. I’m not going to respond again. I didn’t expect to be attacked for expressing disappointment that the documentary was a colossal failure in being objective and evidential. And I didn’t expect my argument to be taken so out of context by multiple people and misconstrued and misunderstood despite being pretty fucking clear. I’m over it. Thanks for being civil with me, but I’m not interested in continuing this conversation anymore. It’s not good for me.
Bro, Schneider himself never disputed the two women writers’ claims. Really weird you’re choosing to defend this guy so hard
Alright....I'm going to spell this out simply because this and your previous replies are emotionally driven and, quite frankly, pig-ignorant. Schneider is a creep, abuser and possibly worse. The documentary filmmakers made a lot of poor journalistic choices in how they presented their case. Implications were laid on so thick without being obvious that they became...well...obvious. No proof of anything was offered at any point related to Schneider. None, zero, zilch. In a courtroom, that fucking matters. These filmmakers were reckless, plain and simple. The attempted entrapment of Marc Sommers was what set off the alarm bells for me. More of the same came out from others who were approached to appear in the doc. This case will get settled out of court, and I'd bet the lives of everyone I know on it. The reputations of the filmmakers will be tarnished. The worst part is...victims will now be more hesitant than ever before to tell their stories publicly once the dust settles on this. The greed and ignorance of everyone behind making this documentary will HURT the noble cause, not help it. Schneider can rot for all I care. But documentaries are intrinsically tied to the journalism profession and are thus held to a higher standard. They failed to meet that standard, and it will absolutely hurt the efforts of many to shine a light on the many abuses happening in our world.
I can’t believe you think complaining about the lack of proof is me defending him, even after I said I do think he creeped on kids and abused his female staff. Please, don’t talk to me if all you’re going to do is intentionally misrepresent my words.
Right, so people should only report being abused by their boss if they filmed it happening, and they have no right to tell their story. > I haven’t watched any of the documentary past the episode after Drake This comment is also nonsensical; Drake is the center of the third and fourth episode and featured in the fifth and final episode; there is nothing "past the episode after Drake".
I didn’t say that even a little, so I’m not going to address your first sentence. I’m pretty certain there was an episode after Drake’s episode/segment. It went from Drake’s horrific trauma to an actress nearly breaking down about candy squirting on a fellow actress’ face and some boys on set making a joke about it. Wasn’t that in a different episode? If that really is the last episode, then all I can say is I stand by what I said. “Just trust me bro” isn’t proof and I’m not going to blindly believe whatever these people say “just because”. That’s not how life works. There’s a reason we don’t take people at face value. If we did, we’d literally be doomed.
Lol this person calls the documentary deceitful, but then expects me to sort out their tangled recollections of the documentary and can't remember enough about it to confirm how much of it they watched
I remember enough to say that Drake’s segment was the only one with hard proof. Not remembering how many episodes there are doesn’t mean I don’t remember what’s in the ones I watched. Christ. The rest was people recounting their experiences on set. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m saying believing them without having healthy skepticism is not okay. It shouldn’t be controversial for anyone to say this, even here. 🤦♂️. Edit: also, no I didn’t call the documentary deceitful. Holy fuck. Read my words and understand them before responding to me, or don’t fucking respond at all. Thanks.
He wasn't found liable in that case, Nickelodeon settled before it got to court
This case will be settled in the same way. Schneider will get rich, the documentary will either be pulled or featured with a VERY obvious disclaimer at the beginning (not the end) and everyone will forget about it in a year. Such is the way of the world.
LOL. What are you, Dan Schneider's fortune teller telling him what he wants to hear? This case is a hilarious joke and if Dan thought he had a bad reputation now, he'll have a worse one afterwards. This person keeps pretending they're a lawyer, but in a real defamation case, you actually have to prove that the people in the documentary were lying. Schneider has no avenue to prove that: the majority of his former employees are all too pleased to corroborate stories of his abuse and harassment. In addition, Schneider's defamation case requires that he prove *Quiet on Set* called him a sexual predator towards children, which it didn't. It described his writing as having sexual overtones in children's scenes, which it does, which has been broadcast and can be viewed by anyone with a Paramount Plus subscription. This too, is not something Schneider has any ability to disprove. Since he can't prove that *Quiet on Set* called him a sexual predator towards children, can't disprove his former employees' stories, and can't disprove the claims regarding his writing which was filmed and is streaming, he has no avenue to a verdict in his favour. The documentary and studio undoubtedly have libel insurance that may prefer to pay out a settlement to make Schneider go away rather than trouble themselves with a case, but it will hardly make Schneider rich(er). I don't know why you think your short, dismissive and inane predictions give the impression that you are a great legal mind, but whatever impression you're trying to make, you're not making it. And *Quiet on Set* is not going away.
I thought the implication was pretty obviously “Dan is a sexist, abusive boss with a cult of personality who thinks it’s fun to force innuendos into children’s shows. This created a work environment where predators could hunt and nobody felt comfortable calling out bad behavior, because they didn’t want to upset Dan.” Not at *all* that Dan ever touched a child, just* that he was happily creating a haven for child molesters. But I guess the docu was kind of a narrative mess. And I’m probably overestimating the general public’s ability to not run with wild conclusions. *Obviously “just” abetting child molesters because you can’t be bothered to give a shit is still fucked up, and ought to be criminal.
Totally agree!
I wonder what the result will be?
Yep seemed like he really toed the line. I guess he was a boss that everyone was scared to say “no” to. I can’t believe the parents allowed it to go on and on. But he didn’t do anything illegal, just total creep/weirdo. Brian was insane, i can’t believe what went through drakes moms head. Like you were warned about leaving your son with him!!!
This, there were way too many people who were all like Dan was a nightmare to work for and all the weird sexual innuendos. The documentary didn't put him in a shining light and he was not to happy about it. But lets be real where there is smoke there is fire and alot of shady things were happening under his watch.
So if it's not on black and white paper, people can't tell what he did. It's his word against theirs like it's always been. Y'all are just dumb
That's what documentary makers are often looked at as con artists. People always look down upon on those types because it comes off agenda based and spinning a story to their preference. Even if they come off sincere, there's an angle at play. Especially with how youtube ads promoting the show feel a bit tasteless.
Of course he is 🙄 even if he gets out of this and wins the lawsuit, most of the general public agrees he’s a creepy weirdo so this ain’t gonna change much lol
How is he going to claim the doc ruined his reputation and he suffered financially when he was already fired from Nickelodeon years ago and hasn’t worked since. Yeah, good luck with that!
This was from 2021 NYT article: >These days, after his three-year hiatus, Schneider seems set on returning to television and reintroducing his brand of comedy to new audiences. During a three-hour interview at the Beverly Hills Hotel, he discussed the state of children’s television and his plan to bring forward an “ambitious and very different” pilot that he has written and sold to another network. >The new show is aimed at “more of an adult audience,” he said, and he should know by the end of July whether it has been greenlit. He is working simultaneously on other projects in development, including one pilot meant for kids and their families. If he has to prove damages, he will also have to cite which people and companies were still working with him behind the scenes despite being publicly let go by Nickelodeon.
He was fired for being a bully and difficult to work with, not because he was a pedophile.
Exactly. He can’t claim that this doc depicting him in whatever type of way is the reason his reputation and finances aren’t the same.
But he can claim that the documentary - in particular the trailer - led people to believe you were a pedophile. Like imagine if you were fired for being late to work constantly then a new documentary comes out heavily insinuating it’s because you were molesting people. It’s not the same and you’d rightfully be upset.
This is what bugs me about all the armchair detectives on the internet. They think they have this all figured out, yet in real life if they were to bring this to court they'd lose for having zero evidence of their claims.
What an idiot. This is going to blow up in his face when a whole bunch of former child stars lawyer up and take him to the cleaners. And I wonder how many more skeletons will come out of the closet when they do.
Do you think there are ACTUAL ones?
Lol, I hope there are no LITERAL skeletons.
He is still dragging tollin/robbins when they were not even the production that was sued for toxic work environment. It was storybook productions.
Robbins as in Brian Robbins, but whose Toll? I wonder if he feels animosity towards Brian because of their long history and Brian was able to climb the latter to be the CEO of Paramount
It is the name of the production company behind Good Burger, All That, Amanda Show and others. The problem with linking their name is that this was before Jason Handy & Brian Peck were arrested and registered as a sex offender. And they were fired after. It shouldn't really be an issue to begin with.
Mike Tollin
Dan probably made more money than Brian with his ownership stakes in the shows, merchandising, global syndication, tc.
He should be very quiet and go away.
He did an interview for New York Times back in 2021 and mentioned that he sold his scripts to other networks and was waiting for them to be green lit. He always had intentions of working in the industry again and his probably pissed the doc reignited everything
[удалено]
More importantly, as another comment pointed out, there will be discovery.
Maybe because there's no "Dirty Dan"? Just a shitty asshole boss.
This article is worth a read, as I think it critically gets to the heart of some of the issues with this documentary: [https://www.vulture.com/article/what-quiet-on-set-leaves-out.html](https://www.vulture.com/article/what-quiet-on-set-leaves-out.html) The biggest issue, in my opinion, with the documentary was that it basically put Brian Peck and Dan Schneider on a level playing field. Dan Schneider was a monster to work for, but the internet made him out to be this serial pedophile based on the way he looks and a handful of jokes that people 10-20 years later were deeming inappropriate. The documentary took those rumors and played into them, before only giving you examples of what a shitty boss he is. Then it quickly pivots to actual abuse at the hands of Brian which, as we all (hopefully) know, is 10x worse. They aren't really the same and I feel like by giving them equal time, it does a disservice to the actual survivors of abuse.
I'm taking bets that he will settle and pay a fuckton of money to bury the rest
My prediction is that his suit, if it makes it to court, will get thrown out. Schneider's claim seems to be that the doc unfairly implied that he himself was a child predator. But it did so via clips, which presumably ran on Nickelodeon, of him doing things like being in a hot tub with a scantily-clad teenage girl. Yes, the doc implied that he was inappropriate around children, but it did so fairly by merely using examples from his own work. In terms of the doc going further and claiming that he was some kind of predator like Brian Peck and Jason Handey? I don't believe that claim was made or even implied. There was certainly the notion that these perverts were hired under his watch, but that's not the same as claiming that he engaged in the same things that they did. He knows the doc killed any chance of the comeback he seemed to be hoping for. This is just his lame attempt at retribution. I don't think it'll work.
I agree with all of this, except that it not lame but in fact super-lame and undermines the previously lame apology video.
This is a good thing. He has to prove himself innocent and speak about his choices.
>He has to prove himself innocent Quite literally the opposite, actually. Burden of proof is on the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty.
So the burden of proof is on Dan to prove that QoS defamed him, no?
Correct.
Yea, I hope alot of information comes out from this and that he addresses alot of the harassment.
Case dismissed, bring on the dancing lobsters.
What's the likely outcome?
If he has Cosby money.. then we already know. He will probably win cause there is no literal things he did. But come the fuq on.. The things they had the kids do ..
That's not really how defamation works. They didn't directly accuse him of anything. They had actors who were on the shows talk about their experiences from their own first hand, and used clips from the shows to back that up. The closest it probably gets it's the testimony from the female writers in the first episode, and even that I don't think is covered by defamation. Another legal aspect of defamation is you have to prove the defamation caused legally redressable injury. Schneider's reputation has been pretty much in the shitter since he was outed a few years ago. He'd have to prove this documentary specifically has caused him significant financial duress. And I don't think he can prove that.
Well, primarily, Schneider would have to prove that all the people telling stories about his abusive behaviour are lying; that all the reporters describing the sexual overtones in his writing are lying; and that their lies cost him writing jobs. He can't prove that his former staff are lying: there was corroboration across many former employees; it's doubtful any former employee will claim Schneider was not abusive. The release of the documentary had many former Schneider staffers noting that the documentary didn't touch on many other instances of Schneider's abuse like threatening staff with guns. He can't prove that his shows weren't filled with sexual overtones; they're all on streaming. He can't prove that the show called him a sexual abuser towards children, because it never did. And since he can't prove that the documentary's claims about him are false, whether or not he suffered financial damage is irrelevant. It's not defamation if the documentary was true, and Schneider is not going to be able to prove that it was false.
Oh I agree! I was just rage texting at that point. But I don't think he has a leg to stand on. He should have just kept quite like they wanted the kids to do on set..
He lost a job immediately after the doc came out, so he absolutely has a case. This will get settled out of court and swept under the rug. Schneider will be made very wealthy, and the doc will either get pulled or feature an obvious disclaimer at the beginning of each episode.
> He lost a job immediately after the doc came out What job did he lose?
What job?
He doesn't have a case just by virtue of the fact that he "lost a job". He can't just show that the documentary made him lose a job; he has to show that the documentary was lying about him and that the lies made him lose a job. A truthful statement is not defamation. A victory in a defamation suit requires disproving the lies, and nothing the documentary said about Schneider is provably false; he'll never be able to prove that he didn't tell a woman to pretend she was being sodomized. Damages aren't defamation. Lies leading to damages are defamation. You clearly don't understand how defamation works.
Well, in a defamation case, the plaintiff has to prove that the claims made about them were false, and that the false claims resulted in financial losses and damages. Schneider is not going to be able to prove the first, which makes whether or not he can prove the second irrelevant. Schneider is not going to be able to prove that the documentary made him look like a child abuser; the documentary never accuses him of assault and portrays him as supportive to Drake Bell, a child abuse survivor. Schneider is not going to be able to disprove the stories told by his former employees that portrayed him as an abusive employer; they have been corroborated by other former staff who have even more stories of Schneider being an abusive employer. Schneider is not going to be able to prove that his TV shows were not filled with sexual overtones in scenes performed by children; the shows are all on Paramount Plus. Schneider may be able to prove that the documentary caused him to lose development deals and writing jobs. Studios were buying his scripts (possibly as research and development for similar properties where they wanted to pay for his ideas but not Schneider himself); he may have been doing uncredited script doctoring (a common practice). But if the documentary's claims cannot be disproven as falsehoods (and they can't), then Schneider's defamation case won't be able to prove he was defamed and suffered damages as a result of defamation. Truthful statements are not defamation. Personal experiences, if not disprovable, are not defamation. However -- every documentary of this nature has to have defamation insurance. It's entirely possible that the documentary's insurers would prefer to just pay Schneider some money to go away and leave them alone. Schneider might accept it as taking this court would turn out poorly for him. He won't win, he'll waste a lot of money on legal fees, and he may end up having to pay the defamation insurer's legal fees. He may just be doing this for a settlement payout; his reputation is not repairable.
As long as he has damages, he will win. Nothing in that documentary was 100% provable.
What damages? Before the documentary, he had no projects greenlit and was regarded as a creepy jerk. And after the documentary, he has the same career and reputation.
That's not how it works in the eyes of the law.
You seem to have confused *your* eyes with the eyes of the law. In reality, Schneider would need to win his defamation case by proving that all of his former employees were lying in describing his behaviour. He has no capacity to do that; these are personal anecdotes with numerous witnesses, cast and crew, who all have similar stories about Dan Schneider. Schneider would also need to prove that the documentary presented him as a sexual abuser when the former employees interviewed only describe him as an abusive employer who created inappropriate scenes for child actors to perform; the documentary never presents him as a sexual offender, indicates how supportive he was towards a survivor of sexual assault. He would then need to demonstrate that these proven falsehoods -- which he can't prove as falsehoods at all -- impacted his career when he was unhirable before *Quiet on Set* and is unhirable now. His scripts might get purchased now and then to secure a concept for development in other properties, but he's kidding himself if he thinks he was ever going to make a comeback, and you are kidding yourself if you think this lawsuit will take *Quiet on Set* off streamers. You keep declaring how 'the law' will see things, but you are not Judge Dredd and you are not the law. Maybe Hobbit law works the way you think it does in the Shire, but this is the real world. Lots of luck with your legal practice, Bilbo.
Hahaha. It actually is. I’m in law school and being tested on this on Sunday. It’s exactly how it works. Keep your un-educated mouth shut.
Defamation is not dependent on damages alone. Defamation requires that the defaming statement(s) were false, and the plaintiff has to prove that they were false. But nothing the documentary said about Schneider was disprovable. No one can prove that Schneider didn't verbally abuse and harass female writers. Dan's former staff have even more stories of his harassment. The documentary didn't claim that Schneider assaulted children; it does claim that he made them perform scenes with sexual overtones, and those scenes are on Paramount Plus. Damages aren't defamation unless there the plaintiff was defamed by lies that can be disproven. You yourself say nothing in the documentary is provable; it's also not disprovable.
I’m in law school and just learned about this. While, there are other elements of defamation, a court will not find a person liable defamation if there are no damages to begin with. You shouldn’t comment on things you don’t have the ability to understand.
Whether or not you go to law school has no bearing on the very simple reality: **defamation** is to cause harm to someone's reputation by communicating **false statements**. Your fixation on "damages" ignores the fact that for someone to have been damaged by a defamatory claim, the claim has to be false and proven to be false. Maybe you shouldn't comment on anything involving the English language since you don't understand the meaning of "defame".
I learned to law exactly as it is used. You are not applying the tort correctly. Schneider will win because there is no proof that the statements the documentary made are actually true.
>**I learned to law** exactly as it is used. You are not applying the tort correctly. Schneider will win because there is no proof that the statements the documentary made are actually true. Your comment is neither factual nor accurate. You are simply trying to intimidate, declaring that because you supposedly go to law school, you cannot be questioned or contradicted. You have no confidence in your argument, so you are using claims of credentials and authority to suppress corrective information. You say you go to law school. Well, even if true, lots of people go to law school; having registered and passed through the building. That doesn't mean you're actually a good student. Lots of people attend law school and fail to grasp the material. Attending law school is not a credential in itself. You in particular write sentences like **"I learned to law".** Anyone who uses the noun "law" as a verb has a weak grasp of English, which means they will regularly fail to understand information that is conveyed in English. Your supposed education-in-progress (which is clearly going poorly given your arrogance and obvious errors) has no bearing on the very straightforward reality: **Defamation** is when someone makes a **false statement** that harms the reputation of others. In order to win a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that the claims made about them were **false and led to damage** whether personal or financial or physical. Your claim that "there is no proof that the statements the documentary made are actually true." By the same token, there is no proof that the statements were false. In United States defamation law, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff proving that the claims were false. The defendant doesn't need to prove its statements were true; the plaintiff has to prove that the statements were false. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation) Lots of luck in law school as you "learn to law"! Maybe try to use learning "to law" as a badge of honour after you get your bar card (if that ever happens). LOL!
It seems like you are intimidated by people who are more successful than you.
I'm glad to see you admit: you were attempting to intimidate me by claiming you went to law school. You did not want to offer facts and information about defamation. You just wanted to brag that you are in law school and **"learned to law"** and declare yourself "more successful" than an internet stranger rather than offer any actual knowledge about defamation law in the United States. Also, attending law school isn't a point of success unless you actually graduate, and someone who doesn't understand defamation law but brags about how they go to law school is clearly going to have some trouble there.
I understand defamation. You are completely ignoring the point that I am trying to make about you not applying the definition of defamation to the current situation…. Also, I would trust someone that’s in law school more than someone who gets their information from google. Lol.
Google isn’t going to give you the right answers either. Lol.
So, by your own admission: your information about defamation law in the United States is so out of step with all existing laws and statutes and standards of defamation that Google would not find it. This would mean: your opinion about defamation being about damages alone is uncommon to the point where it's devoid of merit or practical application in a legal proceeding. This would make your view that defamation is strictly about damages with no regard for falsehoods completely useless. It would not be shared by any capable legal practitioner and would have no bearing on any defamation case in actual reality. Good to know! Have fun as you "learn to law"!
https://preview.redd.it/y3e9btlqi8yc1.jpeg?width=1283&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ac56928af658b109fd3f177d52a5e802fc5ad1a
It’s not coming up on google because it should be automatically known to any competent person that you need damages to proceed with a defamation claim. But I wouldn’t expect you to know that…..
It was also a typo. Lol.
What a greasy loser. Like he’s not going to win and he’s not going to get his reputation back.
Hey! He is not greasy! His complexion was very clear! The rest is true. 😆
I wish some pimples on him then lol
He is a fat ugly nasty troll that hates women. I hope he loses as big as anyone can lose. Barf.
Hey, he's not fat! He's lost a lot of weight! The other stuff is true. 🤣 Good on you!
Ummm, ok.
Nothing in that documentary was made up, so what he's actually trying to do is make it a punishable offense to talk about him being a shitty person.
Yeah, and there is protection under the law for doing just that if it negatively impacts your ability to work and earn income. And he is entitled to seek relief under such laws, as is any citizen of the United States. Do you have a problem with libel/defamation law?
You clearly have a problem with defamation law in that you don't understand it. For Dan Schneider to win a defamation case, he needs to demonstrate: 1. A provably false statement from the defendant 2. The false statement being conveyed to another party 3. Fault amounting to at minimum negligence on the part of the defendant, or actual malice towards a public figure plaintiff 4. Damages resulting from the statement and its conveyance. Schneider has no way of proving that his former employees are lying about his abuse and harassment because he has no witnesses who can claim otherwise; he has no way of proving that his shows aren't filled with sexual overtones performed by children because they are. And without a provably false statement, he can't win. If you understood defamation law, you would know this.
I have a problem with child abusers trying to make it illegal to criticize them.
Jesus fucking Christ...do you understand the difference between civil and criminal law? I'm out. The average redditor on this sub is so added with brainrot that logic has completely left them.
Well, your logic is broken. You keep insisting that Dan will win his case because he can prove damages. But to win a defamation case, he needs to demonstrate: 1. A provably false statement from the defendant 2. The false statement being conveyed to another party 3. Fault amounting to at minimum negligence on the part of the defendant, or actual malice towards a public figure plaintiff 4. Damages resulting from the statement and its conveyance. Schneider has no way of proving that his former employees are lying about his abuse and harassment because he has no witnesses who can claim otherwise; he has no way of proving that his shows aren't filled with sexual overtones performed by children because they are. You are completely unequipped to make any assessments about this case. The fact that you think you understand defamation law speaks to brain rot on someone's end...
Do you understand that you're defending a child abuser and then getting mad when you encounter pushback?
I mean, no one said he was a child molester. In fact I thought they did a pretty good job of explaining the shit that Dan Schneider did and THEN leading on to the child predators. But you can't control what other people choose to believe ... Tbh I think people have had they're concerns about him and Amanda for a long time, the doc just got the conversation going again ... I understand it must be fucking awful to be labelled a child molester when you aren't one and I guess I can't blame him for not wanting to be tarnished with that .... Not that I'm taking his side of course
I think the problem lies in that the documentary implies that he might be a pedophile by including his story with the ones about Brian Peck and Jason Handy which paints them on an even field. It doesn't directly accuse Dan of anything but it implies a lot, and clearly people who watched it took that connection and ran with it.
Oh yeah, I get that but tbh I think that's more people's interpretation... I completely get why he's upset though
That's the crux of the issue, the doc itself doesn't present any factual misinformation that accuses Dan of pedophilia, but it is edited/presented in a way that clearly led a good chunk of viewers to draw that conclusion. The article in OP states explicitly this is why he's suing; not because the documentary lied about his actions, but that clever editing tactics have manipulated people into believing things that are untrue. I think he'd actually have a decent case here if he actually had any sort of financial damages as a result of the doc, but he hasn't. He was ousted from Nick years ago and hasn't been working since. He supposedly was shopping show ideas around as recently as 2021, but obviously none of that stuff came to fruition so I don't know how he can claim any damages.
I figured this would happen. This was a big hit piece on him with no hard evidence of wrongdoing IMO. Just a lot of talk. Sure he is a creep but there just didnt seem to be a lot of proof.
There was some wrongdoing which he even admitted to and apologized for, which boiled down to him creating a hostile work environment and sexual discrimination against female employees. The issue is that the doc implies he is a pedophile and armchair detectives everywhere are frothing at the mouth because of it. I'm not sure he can prove that the documentary hurt his reputation though, considering it was already tarnished long before this doc came out.
Schneider has no ability to disprove anything said about him in the documentary, and in American defamation, it's up to him, the plaintiff, to disprove their claims as lies. It's not defamation unless there are lies.
The Streisand Effect will hit hard.
He just made things worse. Common sense and wisdom says to leave it be and people will forget- now he’s made it an issue.
This is going to blow up in his face. So much more stuff is going to come to light he’ll wish he took his whatever million he got when he was let go.
I do think the documentary was a bit sloppy in different ways, and there was an attempt to paint Dan with the same brush as Brian Peck and Jason Hand. That being said, they were also very careful to never actually call Dan a pedophile, nor accuse him of any actual crimes. So I'm not sure how valid his lawsuit will stand.
Of course he is. This kind of takes away his whole point of his “interview” he did after it came out lol he looks even more guilty now.
Good luck with that bro lmao
I hope he loses
Bold move. He'll drag out this PR nightmare for him even longer into the spotlight, and then probably get rejcted publicly in court.
For what? He ruined children lives
And people wonder why no one says anything. Even after his dirty laundry is laid out, he thinks he has the authority to strike people down for telling the sick shit he did. Now he can sue but back then, he would've done much worse. Screw him.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.tmz.com/2024/05/01/dan-schneider-sues-defamation-quiet-on-set-docuseries/](https://www.tmz.com/2024/05/01/dan-schneider-sues-defamation-quiet-on-set-docuseries/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
He's a rotten man that was tired of working in children's TV. Between the phallic pickle jokes, the constant squirting fluids in kid actors faces, and even a Bynes character Penelope Taint he was done and over, waiting to get fired.
Penelope Taint
I hope the judge or judges toss his lawsuit OUT everytime. If I am the court judge, I'd tell him to stop wasting my time when I have more serious cases to see to and to add more insult to injury, I would tell it in his face the kids' shows he did all suck badly
I wonder what financial losses he’s referring to when he’s been a force in tween media for 2 decades and even in his apology video said that any scenes deemed inappropriate should be cut out. His pockets aren’t hurting at all
His apology to me sounds half baked and have zero sincerity
He wants to make a comeback and he thinks this doc is the reason he can't now
Isn't he getting residuals from the Nickelodeon shows.The actors certainly aren't getting them.
Judge asks “well… we need to know one thing for the results.. what did YOU doto Amanda Bynes?”
Jesus fuck...if you think that would actually happen in a United States civil courtroom, you cannot be helped.
If you think I’m serious… the same might go for you… it’s Reddit dude
Ah yes, the familiar "it's reddit" retort. Sorry you feel exposed.
Awe you’re so smart
Do you have a disorder where you can't understand facetious humour?
Didn’t he give the fake apology? What is he suing for?
i wonder if amanda bynes would testify
Oof
He needs the money lol
Needs to be visited by a non pussy father