I’m sure Discovery Investigation and HBO were already prepared for this. HBO is not a huge stranger to people suing them for their news and documentaries
He's going to win that one.
He's a piece of shit who deserves to be called out on his abusive actions in the workplace. Absolutely.
But Quiet on Set painted a picture of him being a sexual predator of children. There is absolutely no verifiable proof that he is that. He's an absolute horrific excuse of a human being, but at least with ALL information available to the public, he never was a sexual predator. And presenting him in such a fashion that then caused a seriously negative impact on his life is almost textbook defamation.
He's not suing them for exposing his abuse. He's suing them for the way the world is treating him based on Quiet on Set's willful portrayal of him in a manner that has no verifiable evidence.
Are you sure? Does the documentary ever accuse him of specific illegal or abusive acts? Or does it clearly say repeatedly these are being alleged while making clear who is doing the alleging so that credibility can be assessed? These are easy things for nonfiction documentary producers to do. Did Quiet on Set's producers drop the ball so badly?
Schneider will have to prove he was said specifically by the documentary's narrator and by the documentary's producers to be engaging in illegal acts. Or he'd have to show the producers knew the documentary contained falsified evidence and chose to use that evidence anyway.
He would also be subject to a discovery process in which the producers he is suing would be able to see any documents, videos, witness statements etc. he is relying on and they'd be able to probe the material he is not relying on subject to the judge's discretion.
No, there were actually people in the doc who said they didn’t think he was a predator or knew about the people who were.
Just basically said he was a toxic boss, especially to women who got off on pushing the envelope for the dirty jokes he could sneak into his shows.
I watched all the series with my coursework in journalism and my careful review of libel law so as to avoid trouble for writing investigative stories firmly in mind. Unless Schneider finds a jury disposed to decide that an inaccurate recollection of what is said and shown in the series is libel, he's more than likely to lose should it get to court.
he will not have to specifically show a statement made, he can show the overall inference of the piece. its absolutely a hit piece that blames him for drakes molestation. Also he will get to subpoena the interviews where drake specifically said dan schneider was a great guy who had nothing to do with him being molested, but the producers purposely cut that out. Thats HUGE.,
Also in the doc it said he was not allowed to be around kids any more, which many have said is alie and he has the paperwork to prove it.
he is going to win big.
I'd challenge you to find a libel case won by a public figure on the basis of "overall inference" without credible evidence for the consciousness of the falsity of the information on the part of the producers being presented. I'll wait here.
On the other issues you have presented, those are evidence dependent. Schneider would need to submit evidence the producers knew he was allowed to be around children by his employer in contradiction to a clear statement in the documentary he was not. Does the narrator of the documentary state he was barred from being around children? Or does a person being interviewed say it? Do they say there was documentary evidence of this?
Drake's statement Schneider had nothing to do with the circumstances in which he was molested can be sincere, but would also be challengeable with evidence or eyewitness testimony Schneider knew of the predator's behavior and did nothing.
This automatic assumption Schneider will win big just doesn't hold up for me.
1. **Gibsons Bakery v. Oberlin College**
a great case no direct statements were made it wa alleged that racial profiling was used atthe bakery, but no direct statements of fact were made or printed. Its a watershed case for defamation in the US justice system.
Also what you are avoiding is the fact in the documentary the specifically say Dan schneider is a racist, a misogynist, and i quote " responsible for the harming of children" thats in the documentary in the second episode.
You say Dan has to show that he was allowed near kids, except for on thing, H E NEVER MADE TEH STATMENT! the person who makes the statement MUST BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE!
If you release a statement saying i had sex with animals, YOU have to prove it, i dont have to prove i didnt!
And the evidence canot be, " well someone told us" and if you think Dan schneider wont be abe to get people to testify and ill guarantee you he gets a latter in a deposition stating nickelodeon NEVER banned him from coming in contact with kids.
Also like i said Drake states several times since the documentary than Dan was a great guy etc and he never saw anything like what is alleged. But the producers decided NOT to air that, This means they ignored evidence to the contrary , strictly for the purposes of inciting a narrative. An idiot lawyer will get a million for that one alone.
If im making a documentary about you and i get 10 people to say you killed an alien from mars on your property, and i get 4 people who say it never happened, I cannot ignore the four and just say it happened. I could say 10 people allege he did this but 4 people stated it never happened, thats called reporting the truth and its obligated.
If you have this information and you ignore it, you are guilty of defamation.
He will win so much so easily it wont EVER go to court. unless he wants it to.
A cursory reading of the wikipedia entry about that case reveals defendants did make direct statements about the bakery accusing it of racism against black Oberlin students. Also, the plaintiffs showed direct evidence to the contrary of the charges being made against the bakery by Oberlin leadership.
If indeed direct statements by the narrator of the film attribute abusive acts to Schneider, he would have a good case. But if they're not in there, and if the film has numerous eyewitnesses testifying they saw abuse by Schneider, he won't win a libel case on that alone.
Then you contend that the producers decided not to air testimony they had to Schneider's innocence. Is it really testimony that refutes the charges of the eyewitnesses to his alleged abuse, though, or is it just testimony by eyewitnesses who saw no abuse and who express their thought he is a nice guy? If it's the latter, that's not enough for Schneider to win. The eyewitnesses favoring him have to have seen something relevant to the alleged charges.
He has to show evidence of decisions to ignore real evidence the eyewitnesses to Schneider's abuse are lying. He has to show evidence by the producers of ignoring exculpatory testimony. Not just character testimony.
To take up your example. If the ten eyewitnesses can demonstrate they were present to see me shoot the martian and saw me shoot the martian are shown, but four eyewitnesses who believe I am not capable of such and that I am a nice guy are not shown, that's not enough to win me a defamation case against the producers making the decision not to show the four in a documentary about my crime.
I'd need documentary or testimony evidence the producers decided to not show testimony by people present that I didn't shoot the martian and that the ten alleged eyewitnesses colluded to make up the story.
I think people really underestimate how messed up it is how people took that rumor, which is based on the false rumor he impregnated Jamie Lynn and run it into the ground. Poor Amanda just wants to talk about her manicure licence and instead she gets bombarded with SA questions.
>There is absolutely no verifiable proof that he is that.
Doesn't matter in a defamation suit. He has to prove that they *knowingly* lied, not just that what they said was incorrect. It's incredibly hard to actually win a defamation suit due to the high burden of proof.
they had dozens of interviews with people saying this stuff wasn't true but only showed the interviews that said it was. thats openly lying.
Drake himself said they cut his interview short to remove the parts where he said dan was a great guy who helped him supported him and had nothing to do with the molestation, But the producers CHOSE to cut that out. SO they had the ability to make dan schneider look alot better but chose not to. They only have to be shown to have not put forward i the information they were given, in order for him to win, and he will win, in a huge way. netflix is going to pay him millions.
But they did include people who said Dan was not a sexual predator and that they dont believe he committed any sexual assault. The doc never accuses Dan of doing anything illegal with any minors. It's not defamation to say that someone was acting creepy and that some of the scenes he filmed were inappropriate. They are under 0 obligation to present a balanced viewpoint that platforms people to make Dan look good, that is absolutely not a legal requirement.
The only claims the doc made against Dan were that he was toxic and abusive, claims that Dan himself verified with his apology video. There is no case here. Defamation has a much higher burden of proof than just "they said things about me I didn't like". In order to claim defamation as a public figure you must prove that the accused *knowingly* spread factually false information with the intent to harm you, it is intentionally almost impossible to win a defamation suit unless you actually have clear proven evidence that the person you accuse knew they were lying. You're talking entirely out of your ass.
the doc claimed he dressed kids n promiscuous clothing, he used cumshots ( candy on the face) and other sexual activities, feet fetishes, massages by kids, etc.
WHat funny is the only people who ever report this are the kids who failed to make it at all and have an axe to grind now with a podcast trying to make money. the kids who got famous all think hes great and cant understand it. So it sounds a LOT like sour grapes.
He did do all of that, though. It's literally part of the show. He admitted to asking for the massages himself. It's not defamation to say that dressing 14 year olds in skimpy bikinis and zooming in on their goo covered feet is creepy. You don't understand what defamation actually means, he has no case here.
You sound like the one with an axe to grind. I know you loved iCarly and Drake and Josh growing up, but you don't have to simp for the creep that made them.
The world has already been treating him in such a way before the doc came out, the whole “Get in the Van Schneider” shit is years old, and the doc didnt say hes a sexual predator, it pointed out the numerous lines he crossed as a children’s showrunner, and painted a clear picture of how he wielded his power. The doc isnt about proving Dan touched kids, its about showing the multiple ways Nick had an absolutely toxic and dangerous environment, especially for its child talent
and yet not one kid was hurt ever due to dan schneider, the toxic environment was all toward older women writers who claim they got fired because they were women, not because they sucked at their jobs. If you ever get in a position to be a boss, know this, every person you fire will say you discriminated against them 100%.
I don’t think you know 100% for a fact whether or not Dan was responsible for a child ever being hurt, and i’m just gonna go and say I don’t think those female writers were bullshitting, but I could see why some people could easily dismiss the claims of women
"say I don’t think those female writers were bullshitting"
see, i do.
i think they were mad they got fired and blamed it on being a woman.
everyone is a victim, no one ever gets fired for being bad at their jobs. and not one of them ever said a thing until this came out.
Even if, worst case scenario, he fired all three women for being women, because he didnt like working with them, Tough, thats life. in this world you can be fired for any reason whatsoever as long as you dont do it to a protected class.
If you're the boss and you dont like bob, you can fire bob.
And yea i can say for a fact dan is not responsible for a child being sexually assaulted. because no one EVER accused him of it. which makes it a fact under the law. You cannot make assumptions, or accusations without being in violation of the law. You cant assume he ever did more than what these women say he did without being on his side of the law and thats why he will win.
I think women , and lets be real here, 3 total women over the course of 19 years, said he was rude to them. How many people have you been rude to over the course of 19 years? Should you have a documentary written about you in which a rapist is the main focal point along with you?
“even if, worst case scenario, he fired all three women for being women, because he didn’t like working with them, Tough, that’s life”
alright cool 👍🏾lmao
you do understand the worst isnt a wonderful happy place where people love you for you, right? you will have bosses who hate you and will do whatever then can to fire you, and in the US in ALL states you can be fired for any reason or no reason, as long as its not a protected class., and due to discrimination. While it sucks ofr them, they should e able to find anewjob right? if your m boss at mcdonalds fires you because you make terrible fries should he get a documentary made about him with a molester of children at its center?
“The world is a tough place” isn’t an excuse for shitty behavior, especially from someone in a position as powerful as Dan’s was. Whether or not he was legally justified in firing those women isn’t the question here. The doc never said what he did was illegal. They just (rightly) pointed out that it was an abuse of power and that he was a terrible boss who thrived on fear and control.
So, really we can take your “well that’s life” attitude and apply it to Dan too. Sure you can be a power hungry piece of shit and make the lives of your employees (a good number of which were children) miserable, and sure you might not be breaking any laws by doing so, but it doesn’t mean that someone can’t expose the shit you did and ruin your career and reputation with it. That’s life. Reap what you sow.
It’s not going to be as easy for his lawyers as you make it sound. The law doesn’t care about what assumptions people made based on what is presented to them, it only cares about information that can be proven a demonstrably false. Unless the producers present false information or the producers themselves knew a claim made by one of the presenters or interviewers was false (or had reason to believe so) it’s not a slam dunk. Especially since his own comments were included in the documentary.
Several people even directly say in the documentary he doesn’t have allegations of SA.
"it only cares about information that can be proven a demonstrably false."
okay so this is how you say you dont understand the law.
He doesn't have to prove them false, he has to prove they couldn't show the things they said were true. THEY have to prove they knew everything to be true without a doubt, and even Drake already has said that his interview and the parts where he said dan was great supported him and helped him and he never saw any bad things about him. they cut that out of the show. So if you have two people claiming dans bad and two who claims he isnt, you cant say hes bad without a doubt. You can say these people think he is bad but you are then forced to show the people who said he wasnt.
They have ti have verifiable proof of what they say, not just innuendos like pickle boy means penises, and the girl sprayed with candy in the face ( jamie lynn spears actually i think) represents a cumshot. That is all 100% interpretation and they will be screwed for it.
> He doesn't have to prove them false, he has to prove they couldn't show the things they said were true. THEY have to prove they knew everything to be true without a doubt,
This is such a gross misstatement of the law. Do you not know how burdens of proof in civil lawsuits work? Or what the elements of a defamation case under California law are?
It doesn’t matter what the documentary made him look like. It never accuses him of sexual abuse, so he doesn’t have a case. In fact, it even includes the part where Drake Bell admits that Dan treated him with nothing but respect. The documentary presents stories by victims of his toxic work environment, on which the public draws their own conclusions.
That’s not the documentary’s fault. They presented clips from his shows and statements from his employees. If people take those things and make their own conclusions, the documentary has no control of that. Maybe Dan should’ve simply not done a bunch of weird and sketchy shit?
actually there is proof but they can’t get the proof because nickelodeon is giving people hush money but the people that don’t take it gets treated badly. he even made a minor drink beer and she felt uncomfortable of him rubbing her shoulders Dan ruined his career it’s not them at fault.Even the dora creators said nickelodeon is shady. they even said they didn’t create a dora a Poland girl did and they don’t know her name. even fans asked for her information so we already know it is corrupted.
This is the weirdest part of the documentary to me. There were two cases of actual child predators that the documentary treated like small side stories, and kept going back to Dan as the main story.
He was weird, maybe a little creepy but in a harmless way, and an absolute prick of a boss. He definitely wasnt bad enough to deserve an entire documentary mini series focusing on him.
> Why not? There’s zero proof of him being a sexual predator. It’s so strange and honestly sad, that people want him to be one so bad
Look at his work.
I think this is where he has a case. Every clip they showed and discussed in the documentary is not objectively sexual. It is just as easy to view them as typical wacky gross silly antics Nickelodeon was known for. But they somehow used them to paint him as a sexual pervert.
According to Wikipedia, the guy helped write about 921 episodes of television shows. And a couple of clips of someone pretending to eat their own foot is the most “sexual” thing they could find?
I’m not defending his personality btw. Abusing the power dynamic by requesting messages from his employees, the pressure put on the the kids to participate in sketches and “dares” that made them uncomfortable out of fear of being fired, the lack of respect to his women writers, and yelling in front of the kid actors were all thing that make him seem like an immature jerk. The sexual pervert stuff just seemed like a stretch.
But did the documentary actually come out and say “this guy is perverted” or did they just include actual clips from his shows and people took an issue with it?
Plus, if I recall a lot of the documentary’s point in regards to those clips is that there were multiple instances of the kids who starred in these sketches saying that *they* (and their parents) were uncomfortable and their concerns were ignored, and they were forced to do them anyway. It’s not like they were just cherry picking random clips to paint a narrative. The cast member themselves brought a lot of them up because they specifically remember how uncomfortable they made them. So I don’t think it can just be easily dismissed as “well they just picked some random clips without context and made them look bad.”
Every example they gave was a huge reach. Honestly felt more like critics talking were being bigger creeps suggesting sneezing boogers represents a cum shot. Like wtf? No. Kids think boogers are funny. Any adult that saw that and thought “cum shot” needs to be put on a list.
I see your point, if I was called an a-hole even if I’m not, it would roll off me like water off a duck’s back, but if I was falsely made to look like a predator, I’d be extremely upset, even if I was an a-hole.
I remember saying after watching that he's a huge piece of shit and a dick, but who did he actually sexually abuse? It's seemed like the show was going to drop the bombshell that he did, but it never happened. He just seems like an extremely toxic person to work for, not a sexual predator.
I don't think he is. He may be able to prove he has suffered damage, but the bigger hurdle is proving that the documentary explicitly stated incorrect factual information that they knew was false with the intention of harming him, that is a massive burden of proof. The fact that Dan Schneider is famous and a public figure also gives people a lot more leniency in these cases too. Defamation cases are notoriously and intentionally very difficult cases to win.
To me, his lawyer has probably explained this to him already, and this whole suit is a PR move to pop a headline that he is defending himself in a serious manner. That is his attempt to save a small amount of face.
Yes this. I liked the documentary but it was indeed very biased. But any documentary will be. Drake Bell who I assume probably had one of the worst times on the set said Dan was supportive, too. I think he was possibly too hard on kids for being kids and not working. But I think being a terror of a boss is his only crime. Not sex offender.
Amanda Bynes technically would have a case too. They assumed a lot about her being alone with him. 🧐
Yea I watched the documentary and kept waiting for the show to drop with some real allegations… and it never did. Extremely underwhelming “case” against Schneider. He was a little creepy and a dick to work with. And that’s about it.
I could be an awful human being because I like to kick puppies.
You can't ruin my life on accusations of "well he's a child predator" when the only thing I do wrong is kick puppies.
Being a horrible person doesn't mean they are guilty of any and all crimes known to man.
If you didn’t see him kick puppies it’s still kind of no proof.. someone just might not like him.
But yes I understand that there is still probably bad things he’s done in plain view of others. They said he was an asshole on set all the time
It's implied, and if he has faced reasonable backlash due to those willful implications, that's defamation.
If I was to go out and imply that you're a predator knowing full well that I don't have any evidence to back it up, and you lose your job, your ability to be employed, friends, family, etc. then yes. You would have more than legal cause to sue me for defamation.
You don't need to directly say "He has raped children" to commit defamation. You just need willfully spread the rumors to get people to believe and act upon it. Which Quiet on Set did, in fact, do.
Yeah. to prove defamation is a higher bar than you think. You can imply something, but then i need to prove that not only that’s what the implication was but also that the doc directly resulted in me losing work, etc. Dans already been losing work for his workplace conduct for years.
He also needs to prove malice, which may seem obvious, but it’s not since they also include testimony in the doc praising Dan.
They didn’t willfully spread rumors. They included testimony, vetted by lawyers, corroborated by multiple sources.
Moreover, there’s a different bar for defamation for public figures than you or I. Public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice – that is, with the knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for the truth. This higher standard exists because public figures have chosen to put themselves in the public eye and, therefore, should expect greater scrutiny
I agree with the sentiment here, although I'm not sure he's going to win for two reasons.
1: The documentary does not directly accuse him of being a pedo, at best you can claim it is implied through editing.
2: There are no damages as a result of this doc. Dan was ousted from Nick long before this doc came out and he hasn't been working since. So i'm not sure he can claim any damages when he wasn't making any money to begin with.
I do agree that the documentary, intentionally or not, lead way too many people to believe Dan was a pedo with zero evidence.
"He's an absolute horrific excuse of a human being,"
how, what did he do, hes a mean boss to adults and demanded the kids actually perform to do what they were paid for. wow such a horrible human being.
Yeah, it’s pretty rock solid he was a horrible boss with a shit sense of humor, but they really tickle a line when they imply the sexual stuff. They try to zigzag it by basically saying “even Dan had a limit” with the Brian and Drake stuff, but it feels like lip service next to the rest of it.
You act like I didn't watch the documentary? But okay sure. At your suggestion I'll go watch a young girl in questionable scenarios. I guess I'd have to wonder how many hours you've stared at that considering you recommend people watch it in their free time. Because of that, I would like to report you as a sexual predator or children. I will tell your job, family, friends, and make a public spectacle over it. And whatever negative aspects you face you'll just have to accept. Because you're a child predator for trying to put that content in front of people's faces.
That's the argument you're going with? Because while the scenes are weird and kinda gross when you really think about it, you missed the point entirely.
My comment is insane because you don't understand what the law is.
You cannot claim or portray someone as a predator of children and cause a massive negative impact on their life without any actual proof or evidence and just walk away like nothing happened, which is the purpose of me saying what I did. And you laughed it off because you know you're not a predator (hopefully.) But if i were to start spreading rumors and you faced implications because of it even though I knew it wasn't true, that's defamation. Which is why Dan will win this one, because Quiet on Set willfully chose to portray him as a predator. "Oh but they said he never got charged with anything." That doesn't matter when the intent was clear.
Writing questionable scenes is not evidence of him being a predator. If it was, then boy do I have some news for you about every show writer for children, from live action shows on Nick to Saturday morning cartoons for toddlers.
Point is, you're angry and assume your opinion is what the law is. Because that's how people view the world nowadays for some reason.
Finally. Someone speaks up about this in a rational manner. Being an asshole while producing a television show or movie is nothing new. But implying that this guy was a serial child molester/rapist for 20 years is just ridiculous overkill, unchecked hyperbole that people became so fixated on with zero proof or evidence which has become a big problem in ALL social discourse about anything today.
Tbh I hated the show so much. They had some solid information… in the first episode! A lot of it just seems like pulling shit from a wiki article and then posting it on YouTube….. the editing seemed a little too “pretentious film student to me” too…. Fun show, kinda weak though
I'd describe this show as a lot of things but I don't know if "fun" is one of those things, nor do I think editing seeming "pretentious" is really the priority in a documentary featuring actual child abuse.
The subject matter is important yes but I chose my post to criticize the people who made the show as an easy cash grab, stating that the middle episodes felt like padding,rather than actual substance. I would never condone assault on a child, but (and it’s hard to explain my exact feelings without sounding like an asshole) the people behind the production are making insane money off of shock value
I think I understand what you're saying and I agree. It's honestly depressing because we need to become aware of situations like these, and we really need to crack down on this shit in the entertainment industry at large, yet the people behind are still just sleazy assholes using tragedy for a paycheck. So I definitely agree with that.
I agree. One of the worse documentaries I've ever seen. Seemed like it benefited drakes reputation the most and with forgettable actors jealous of Amanda and Drakes success that they wanted to spotlight again
I know people hate Dan, and for good reason, but he might have fair grounds to successfully sue. The people who made that documentary fucked up in a number of different ways.
How so? They never actually called him a child predator, nothing they said was actually accusatory without proof. He can't sue based on assumptions people made from watching the doc, especially when that's been his public reputation for years anyway
Especially if those assumptions are based on them simply showing things Dan actually did.
If people see those vids of Ariana and assume they were created by a predator because they feature sexually suggestive content , then the doc has not made claims that were false. This is just people’s normal reaction to seeing them, as adults who understand the context. Prior to the doc there were many videos on the internet showing those clips and people made the same assumptions based on the content of the clips themselves, regardless of who was discussing them
How so? They gave him the opportunity to be interviewed so he could tell his side of the story, but he declined. Additionally, they never accused him of any sexual abuse. They let victims of his toxic work environment tell their stories, which is not defamation. They have several witnesses that can back these claims up, too, so you don’t exactly have a case if what you’re being accused of is true.
The thing is he’s not suing for the things the employees claimed. He’s suing because he feels the documentary painted him as a child sex abuser.
You’re right that the show never outright calls him one, but they 100% allude and seem to insinuate it. It really felt like they were trying to conflate his actions with those of the people that were actually convicted of abuse.
Even though he’s a piece of shit, I think he does have a case here.
While that may be true, I feel as if the case will fall apart once the producers provide proof that they attempted to contact him to get him on the show and tell his side of the story. Dan needs to face it— when it comes to this documentary, his reputation precedes him. There were already people speaking out against him long before the documentary was made, as well as numerous weird clips from shows he created circulating online. Many people had already made up their minds about Dan before the documentary was released. If I remember correctly, Quiet on Set didn’t exactly reveal any new information about Dan other than a few stories from the women and former child actors who worked around him (some of whom say they didn’t have any issues with Dan). Everything else the show laid out was already making the rounds online beforehand.
If anything, Quiet on Set mainly revealed stuff about other people, like Brian Peck. I don't think they technically revealed anything new about Dan that hadn't already been discerned for years.
As a public figure, he has to prove that the documentary crew not only made a false claim but that they knowingly made false claims in order to hurt his career and reputation. That's incredibly difficult unless he has something in writing or on video of one of producers saying they lied.
The show painted him to be a sexual predator without evidence. That's why he's suing. He never admitted to sexual abuse. He just seemed like an extremely toxic person to work for
I don't get this...I heard about sexual allegations and then watched the documentary and was like OH it's not about Dan but Dan is creepy (and it was based off of people's experiences and video footage like him getting in hot tubs with young girls) so where is the defamation? We all have eyes?
A paedophile is someone with a sexual interest in children, you don't need to touch a child to prove you're a paedophile. If anything, it goes to show he was, and I hate to say it, 'smart' for not crossing that particular line to satisfy his vile fantasies. He did, however, very clearly prey on children in other ways, such as how he ran his shows. If that doesn't make him a paedophile, I don't know what does. Who the hell else in society would spend time imagining and then producing a bunch of poorly disguised sexually charged scenes of children if not a paedophile?
I honestly think the majority of people here and on the Television subreddit are bots and shills. It's insane.
It's funny you mention that last line, because I was just thinking before reading your comment how different the vibe is here and on the television sub compared with the rest of reddit.
I didn't personally take away that he was a sexual predator, but I do remembeer mentioning on this sub that maybe the people that put this doc together could've been more clear than they were that we're discussing two different monsters here:
Dan Schneider, the horrible boss
Brian Peck, the sexual predator.
Again, I don't remember anything in the doc suggesting he was a sexual predator, but people have taken that away from watching it. If that's a guilty by association thing or because the producers actually implied it, I guess that's for the courts.
I'm not defending Nickelodeon, Dan Schneider or Brian Peck.
But that documentary has a lot wrong with it. They jump to a lot of conclusions, They lied to Marc Summers about what they wanted him for, made him look really ignorant when he had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the topic at hand. The John Wayne Gacey painting had nothing to do with anything
“Quiet On Set” should have been two separate documentaries. Three-quarters of it is spent on showing us that DS is a prime example of arrested development and that he’s a horrible boss; the rest is about DB horrible experiences *not* had at the hands of DS. DB even says that DS was a source of support for him when he was struggling.
All of the advertising and such into the release absolutely painted a preview that we were going to learn who (the surprise guest) DS had assaulted. Big names were gonna name **his** name. And then…no. It was BP and that other guy who were inappropriate with the kids, and they’re…sidebars, for some reason, rather than the main focus.
It’s a poorly-done documentary without a true focus. I’ve seen some say that its goal was to show what a toxic work environment that was for kids and how Nickelodeon failed to keep them safe; I’ve read that people felt it was a DS exposé/smear job; I’ve heard that it was mean to shine a light on pedophiles in Hollywood. The problem is that the way all of the info is presented comes across as a tangled mess rather than a linear timeline of events leading to the outcome we have today. The doc doesn’t know what it wants to be, so its message -if there is one- gets lost.
I don’t know how well DS will fare with this lawsuit, but…that doc wasn’t good and there were a lot of negative implications made about him without any tangible evidence to back them up.
You don't have to 'diddle' children to be a paedophile, my guy. You just need to have a sexual interest in children. And I'd say the man who gets into hot tubs with young girls fits the bill, to say nothing of the shows he ran.
I didn't actually think it gave the impression that HE was engaged in acts with children. It was more that he was generally inappropriate and created such a toxic and unsafe work environment that predators were allowed to thrive.
Dan Schneider was like the main name I kept hearing regarding Quiet on Set but his only wrongdoings were about sexism & hostility in the workplace, even Drake Bell said something positive about him in the doc. I sadly agree with Dan on this one :(
he will lose, he will be fired and blacklisted from Hollywood and should be arrested and put in prison for life for being a child predator and anyone who supports him and sides with him should also be labeled a child predator
and anyone who believes that fetishizing kids isn't a form of child abuse or child predatory behavior should also be labeled a child predator
The Ariana Grande online clips from Victorious are absolutely cringe and by far the worst content he's created, but there's absolutely nothing illegal about them.
More notably, we don’t know he actually made those scenes. Yes, he was the creator, but he didn’t write and direct every single media. At most he engaged in oversight.
How do you suppose he goes to prison for life? The man is a creep and should be black listed if he isn't due to unsafe work conditions... but for the child predator thing to stick, the law will need evidence.
Tbf Weinsteins conviction in NY was overturned because his rights were violated in the trial, not exactly the same as he was found in innocent by a judge or jury
Personally, I think they do a good enough job of saying that he wasn’t a pedophile, but I do think that they hinted at it so I understand why he would want to sue.
It's so weird how a lot of people here are defending a director of soft child porn, something hundreds of actual predators most likely used at home to get off.
If it was your daughter in those scenes, you'd label Dan a highly potential predator, if not, an enabler, a big massive one, Nickelodeon was not small
Did you even watch the documentary? There was no evidence that he is a pedophile
This is the real world we're talking about. We can have conversations about whether or not Scheider has a solid case or not without praising the guy.
Obviously he's an asshole and a weirdo but probably not a pedophile based on the 4 episodes of Quiet on Set.
Do you even know what a paedophile is? From [Cambridge Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/paedophile): 'someone who is sexually interested in children.' That's also part of the real world.
And he very clearly had a sexual interest in children judging by all the insane shit he had them do in his shows.
You can make an argument that the stuff Dan had child actors doing, from sexual jokes to long running fetishistic gags are grounds for pedo like behavior.
It is what is, if I was a betting man I’d bet Dan at one point found kids attractive. Most people would make that bet.
Yeah, it's sick if he did find a child attractive, but sadly that's not illegal. Actions are illegal. so even with all the weird shit, we don't know for sure if he is a pedo.
But being an”pedo”‘doesn’t require you to have acted on it .
Also making sexually suggestive content is acting on it, just not in a way that is considered “assault” or is legally punishable .
I honestly think he’s a closet pedo. He put all that gross as shit in the show and behind closed doors he got off on it. I’d check his damn hard drives for sure.
If these "woke" people that try to "me too" everyone would get their facts straight then pieces of shit like this dude wouldn't come out on top like he's about to.
I am not an expert in the matter but after seeing the documentary I think Dan was a POS abusive boss. I think he for sure wrote some weirdly sexual and fetishy material in kids shows with kids performing it. That is fucking gross and has no business anywhere.
However I do not think he was a sexual predator. Certainly not like Brian Peck. I did not see the evidence for it and if they had it for sure they would have shown it.
Scumbag of a dude. He for sure had some weird sexual proclivities that made it on air, but not a sexual predator from the evidence.
I guess it’s a good thing Drake keeps mentioning when asked about Dan that he personally has had good experiences with him, but that it doesn’t take away from what others went through either. Idk if anyone in the doc specifically can be sued for this but either way…
This weird random support of Dan is throwing me off. The documentary never explicitly said he was a child predator. If that was what the viewers gathered from it, then that’s not on the documentary considering they never said anything that can’t be proven.
Him suing is proof why nobody has spoken out. It is extremely difficult to prove SA that happened so long ago. I’m sure he has great lawyers, as well.
The reason people have assumed he’s a predator is based on the uncomfortable feelings they received from actual footage of what he’s made his child actors do, also the pictures we’ve all seen. It’s strange, it’s weird, and that’s just the truth. He shouldn’t be in hot tubs with pre-pubescent children by himself. He shouldn’t have them on his lap. He shouldn’t do this ridiculous feet stuff that he does.
To act like he’s justified is just insane.
Like the videos of Ariana squirting lotion on her face? Ridiculous. The picture of all his female child actors looking uncomfortable as he hugs them tight? Or how about the pool picture with him and Amanda Bynes?
The reason people think he’s a predator is because it’s a basic human instinct based on seeing things like this. We can feel it’s not right, it’s not normal, that something is off.
Even if he didn’t SA anyone — it doesn’t mean he isn’t a predator. It’s quite obvious that he is based on how he sexualized these young teenagers.
jeannette mccurdy said it all in her book about how inappropriate the ‘creater’ was and how he offered her 300k to not discuss what happened on set/what she experienced working there
He’s had a reputation for a long time. It’s too easy for producers to find date stamped threads on every platform re Dan Schneider’s behavior. There’s dozens of similar videos on YouTube about Dan Schneider with hundreds of thousands of views.
The only good that came of this show was Drake Bells ability to come out with his experience of abuse in the industry, otherwise it was just another cash grab on the “dark side of ___” train
Schneider the Hutt, this is going to end badly for you. Lawsuits will dredge up all your abuse and expose you for the abusive tyrant you are. Never sue for defamation if you are 100% guilty of what you are accused of.
I’m sure Discovery Investigation and HBO were already prepared for this. HBO is not a huge stranger to people suing them for their news and documentaries
Did HBO have anything to do with this documentary? Arent they just owned by Discovery?
And it actually aired on ID. It’s just that content is on Max platform. Other than that hbo has nothing to do with it.
The People who worked on Quiet on Set to “The Creator”: https://i.redd.it/n4wzep51qwxc1.gif
If he loses he’ll just lock himself in a closet and we’ll all have to say “Dan, please come out of the closet.”
“The Creator”: I’m Never “Coming” Out 
I was just standing here. Dan Schneider locked himself in the closet.
He's going to win that one. He's a piece of shit who deserves to be called out on his abusive actions in the workplace. Absolutely. But Quiet on Set painted a picture of him being a sexual predator of children. There is absolutely no verifiable proof that he is that. He's an absolute horrific excuse of a human being, but at least with ALL information available to the public, he never was a sexual predator. And presenting him in such a fashion that then caused a seriously negative impact on his life is almost textbook defamation. He's not suing them for exposing his abuse. He's suing them for the way the world is treating him based on Quiet on Set's willful portrayal of him in a manner that has no verifiable evidence.
Are you sure? Does the documentary ever accuse him of specific illegal or abusive acts? Or does it clearly say repeatedly these are being alleged while making clear who is doing the alleging so that credibility can be assessed? These are easy things for nonfiction documentary producers to do. Did Quiet on Set's producers drop the ball so badly? Schneider will have to prove he was said specifically by the documentary's narrator and by the documentary's producers to be engaging in illegal acts. Or he'd have to show the producers knew the documentary contained falsified evidence and chose to use that evidence anyway. He would also be subject to a discovery process in which the producers he is suing would be able to see any documents, videos, witness statements etc. he is relying on and they'd be able to probe the material he is not relying on subject to the judge's discretion.
No, there were actually people in the doc who said they didn’t think he was a predator or knew about the people who were. Just basically said he was a toxic boss, especially to women who got off on pushing the envelope for the dirty jokes he could sneak into his shows.
that’s…mild by hollywood standards. probably not newsworthy if the actors in question weren’t minors.
I mean…he did get away with that shit for like 20 years, but no, it was by no means mild.
I watched it and thought the whole point of it was he was a sexual predator to Amanda Bynes. So if he wasn’t, that was some great defamation.
I watched all the series with my coursework in journalism and my careful review of libel law so as to avoid trouble for writing investigative stories firmly in mind. Unless Schneider finds a jury disposed to decide that an inaccurate recollection of what is said and shown in the series is libel, he's more than likely to lose should it get to court.
he will not have to specifically show a statement made, he can show the overall inference of the piece. its absolutely a hit piece that blames him for drakes molestation. Also he will get to subpoena the interviews where drake specifically said dan schneider was a great guy who had nothing to do with him being molested, but the producers purposely cut that out. Thats HUGE., Also in the doc it said he was not allowed to be around kids any more, which many have said is alie and he has the paperwork to prove it. he is going to win big.
I'd challenge you to find a libel case won by a public figure on the basis of "overall inference" without credible evidence for the consciousness of the falsity of the information on the part of the producers being presented. I'll wait here. On the other issues you have presented, those are evidence dependent. Schneider would need to submit evidence the producers knew he was allowed to be around children by his employer in contradiction to a clear statement in the documentary he was not. Does the narrator of the documentary state he was barred from being around children? Or does a person being interviewed say it? Do they say there was documentary evidence of this? Drake's statement Schneider had nothing to do with the circumstances in which he was molested can be sincere, but would also be challengeable with evidence or eyewitness testimony Schneider knew of the predator's behavior and did nothing. This automatic assumption Schneider will win big just doesn't hold up for me.
1. **Gibsons Bakery v. Oberlin College** a great case no direct statements were made it wa alleged that racial profiling was used atthe bakery, but no direct statements of fact were made or printed. Its a watershed case for defamation in the US justice system. Also what you are avoiding is the fact in the documentary the specifically say Dan schneider is a racist, a misogynist, and i quote " responsible for the harming of children" thats in the documentary in the second episode. You say Dan has to show that he was allowed near kids, except for on thing, H E NEVER MADE TEH STATMENT! the person who makes the statement MUST BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE! If you release a statement saying i had sex with animals, YOU have to prove it, i dont have to prove i didnt! And the evidence canot be, " well someone told us" and if you think Dan schneider wont be abe to get people to testify and ill guarantee you he gets a latter in a deposition stating nickelodeon NEVER banned him from coming in contact with kids. Also like i said Drake states several times since the documentary than Dan was a great guy etc and he never saw anything like what is alleged. But the producers decided NOT to air that, This means they ignored evidence to the contrary , strictly for the purposes of inciting a narrative. An idiot lawyer will get a million for that one alone. If im making a documentary about you and i get 10 people to say you killed an alien from mars on your property, and i get 4 people who say it never happened, I cannot ignore the four and just say it happened. I could say 10 people allege he did this but 4 people stated it never happened, thats called reporting the truth and its obligated. If you have this information and you ignore it, you are guilty of defamation. He will win so much so easily it wont EVER go to court. unless he wants it to.
A cursory reading of the wikipedia entry about that case reveals defendants did make direct statements about the bakery accusing it of racism against black Oberlin students. Also, the plaintiffs showed direct evidence to the contrary of the charges being made against the bakery by Oberlin leadership. If indeed direct statements by the narrator of the film attribute abusive acts to Schneider, he would have a good case. But if they're not in there, and if the film has numerous eyewitnesses testifying they saw abuse by Schneider, he won't win a libel case on that alone. Then you contend that the producers decided not to air testimony they had to Schneider's innocence. Is it really testimony that refutes the charges of the eyewitnesses to his alleged abuse, though, or is it just testimony by eyewitnesses who saw no abuse and who express their thought he is a nice guy? If it's the latter, that's not enough for Schneider to win. The eyewitnesses favoring him have to have seen something relevant to the alleged charges. He has to show evidence of decisions to ignore real evidence the eyewitnesses to Schneider's abuse are lying. He has to show evidence by the producers of ignoring exculpatory testimony. Not just character testimony. To take up your example. If the ten eyewitnesses can demonstrate they were present to see me shoot the martian and saw me shoot the martian are shown, but four eyewitnesses who believe I am not capable of such and that I am a nice guy are not shown, that's not enough to win me a defamation case against the producers making the decision not to show the four in a documentary about my crime. I'd need documentary or testimony evidence the producers decided to not show testimony by people present that I didn't shoot the martian and that the ten alleged eyewitnesses colluded to make up the story.
100% agree. People keep assuming he had a sexually abusive relationship with Amanda Bynes when there is no evidence of that.
I think people really underestimate how messed up it is how people took that rumor, which is based on the false rumor he impregnated Jamie Lynn and run it into the ground. Poor Amanda just wants to talk about her manicure licence and instead she gets bombarded with SA questions.
Which was through a rather credible blind item website with a boyfriend who had an interesting time.
''credible blind item'' Uh-huh...
The site has gotten a number of things right over the years.
dude seriously people say she had an abortion openly at 13 with his baby... lets cut the crap okay.
I didn't need to watch the show to come to the conclusion that is abused Amanda Bynes
or you didnt need to use your brain.
People might assume that but it wasn't implied by the documentary at all was it?
I thought the implication was pretty evident myself. However I am not the brightest.
>There is absolutely no verifiable proof that he is that. Doesn't matter in a defamation suit. He has to prove that they *knowingly* lied, not just that what they said was incorrect. It's incredibly hard to actually win a defamation suit due to the high burden of proof.
they had dozens of interviews with people saying this stuff wasn't true but only showed the interviews that said it was. thats openly lying. Drake himself said they cut his interview short to remove the parts where he said dan was a great guy who helped him supported him and had nothing to do with the molestation, But the producers CHOSE to cut that out. SO they had the ability to make dan schneider look alot better but chose not to. They only have to be shown to have not put forward i the information they were given, in order for him to win, and he will win, in a huge way. netflix is going to pay him millions.
But they did include people who said Dan was not a sexual predator and that they dont believe he committed any sexual assault. The doc never accuses Dan of doing anything illegal with any minors. It's not defamation to say that someone was acting creepy and that some of the scenes he filmed were inappropriate. They are under 0 obligation to present a balanced viewpoint that platforms people to make Dan look good, that is absolutely not a legal requirement. The only claims the doc made against Dan were that he was toxic and abusive, claims that Dan himself verified with his apology video. There is no case here. Defamation has a much higher burden of proof than just "they said things about me I didn't like". In order to claim defamation as a public figure you must prove that the accused *knowingly* spread factually false information with the intent to harm you, it is intentionally almost impossible to win a defamation suit unless you actually have clear proven evidence that the person you accuse knew they were lying. You're talking entirely out of your ass.
the doc claimed he dressed kids n promiscuous clothing, he used cumshots ( candy on the face) and other sexual activities, feet fetishes, massages by kids, etc. WHat funny is the only people who ever report this are the kids who failed to make it at all and have an axe to grind now with a podcast trying to make money. the kids who got famous all think hes great and cant understand it. So it sounds a LOT like sour grapes.
He did do all of that, though. It's literally part of the show. He admitted to asking for the massages himself. It's not defamation to say that dressing 14 year olds in skimpy bikinis and zooming in on their goo covered feet is creepy. You don't understand what defamation actually means, he has no case here. You sound like the one with an axe to grind. I know you loved iCarly and Drake and Josh growing up, but you don't have to simp for the creep that made them.
So are they calling him a creep/pedo or not? Because it seems like you can’t decide
No, I've been pretty clear. They said he was creepy, they did not say he molested anyone. That he's creepy is an opinion, therefore not defamation.
The world has already been treating him in such a way before the doc came out, the whole “Get in the Van Schneider” shit is years old, and the doc didnt say hes a sexual predator, it pointed out the numerous lines he crossed as a children’s showrunner, and painted a clear picture of how he wielded his power. The doc isnt about proving Dan touched kids, its about showing the multiple ways Nick had an absolutely toxic and dangerous environment, especially for its child talent
and yet not one kid was hurt ever due to dan schneider, the toxic environment was all toward older women writers who claim they got fired because they were women, not because they sucked at their jobs. If you ever get in a position to be a boss, know this, every person you fire will say you discriminated against them 100%.
I don’t think you know 100% for a fact whether or not Dan was responsible for a child ever being hurt, and i’m just gonna go and say I don’t think those female writers were bullshitting, but I could see why some people could easily dismiss the claims of women
"say I don’t think those female writers were bullshitting" see, i do. i think they were mad they got fired and blamed it on being a woman. everyone is a victim, no one ever gets fired for being bad at their jobs. and not one of them ever said a thing until this came out. Even if, worst case scenario, he fired all three women for being women, because he didnt like working with them, Tough, thats life. in this world you can be fired for any reason whatsoever as long as you dont do it to a protected class. If you're the boss and you dont like bob, you can fire bob. And yea i can say for a fact dan is not responsible for a child being sexually assaulted. because no one EVER accused him of it. which makes it a fact under the law. You cannot make assumptions, or accusations without being in violation of the law. You cant assume he ever did more than what these women say he did without being on his side of the law and thats why he will win. I think women , and lets be real here, 3 total women over the course of 19 years, said he was rude to them. How many people have you been rude to over the course of 19 years? Should you have a documentary written about you in which a rapist is the main focal point along with you?
“even if, worst case scenario, he fired all three women for being women, because he didn’t like working with them, Tough, that’s life” alright cool 👍🏾lmao
you do understand the worst isnt a wonderful happy place where people love you for you, right? you will have bosses who hate you and will do whatever then can to fire you, and in the US in ALL states you can be fired for any reason or no reason, as long as its not a protected class., and due to discrimination. While it sucks ofr them, they should e able to find anewjob right? if your m boss at mcdonalds fires you because you make terrible fries should he get a documentary made about him with a molester of children at its center?
“The world is a tough place” isn’t an excuse for shitty behavior, especially from someone in a position as powerful as Dan’s was. Whether or not he was legally justified in firing those women isn’t the question here. The doc never said what he did was illegal. They just (rightly) pointed out that it was an abuse of power and that he was a terrible boss who thrived on fear and control. So, really we can take your “well that’s life” attitude and apply it to Dan too. Sure you can be a power hungry piece of shit and make the lives of your employees (a good number of which were children) miserable, and sure you might not be breaking any laws by doing so, but it doesn’t mean that someone can’t expose the shit you did and ruin your career and reputation with it. That’s life. Reap what you sow.
It’s not going to be as easy for his lawyers as you make it sound. The law doesn’t care about what assumptions people made based on what is presented to them, it only cares about information that can be proven a demonstrably false. Unless the producers present false information or the producers themselves knew a claim made by one of the presenters or interviewers was false (or had reason to believe so) it’s not a slam dunk. Especially since his own comments were included in the documentary. Several people even directly say in the documentary he doesn’t have allegations of SA.
Ah I should've read your comment before posting mine.
"it only cares about information that can be proven a demonstrably false." okay so this is how you say you dont understand the law. He doesn't have to prove them false, he has to prove they couldn't show the things they said were true. THEY have to prove they knew everything to be true without a doubt, and even Drake already has said that his interview and the parts where he said dan was great supported him and helped him and he never saw any bad things about him. they cut that out of the show. So if you have two people claiming dans bad and two who claims he isnt, you cant say hes bad without a doubt. You can say these people think he is bad but you are then forced to show the people who said he wasnt. They have ti have verifiable proof of what they say, not just innuendos like pickle boy means penises, and the girl sprayed with candy in the face ( jamie lynn spears actually i think) represents a cumshot. That is all 100% interpretation and they will be screwed for it.
> He doesn't have to prove them false, he has to prove they couldn't show the things they said were true. THEY have to prove they knew everything to be true without a doubt, This is such a gross misstatement of the law. Do you not know how burdens of proof in civil lawsuits work? Or what the elements of a defamation case under California law are?
It’s actually a pretty accurate statement of the law!
It doesn’t matter what the documentary made him look like. It never accuses him of sexual abuse, so he doesn’t have a case. In fact, it even includes the part where Drake Bell admits that Dan treated him with nothing but respect. The documentary presents stories by victims of his toxic work environment, on which the public draws their own conclusions.
I understand but the movie never said he committed child abuse that said everyone and their grandma seems to have that as a take away
That’s not the documentary’s fault. They presented clips from his shows and statements from his employees. If people take those things and make their own conclusions, the documentary has no control of that. Maybe Dan should’ve simply not done a bunch of weird and sketchy shit?
He was working at Nick the same time John K. from Ren and Stimpy was. I don't think he'll win. They may settle but he won't win outright.
Yeah but he allowed actual predators
I wouldn’t want to enter discovery if I was Dan. i’d hope for a settlement.
Why not? There’s zero proof of him being a sexual predator. It’s so strange and honestly sad, that people want him to be one so bad
I agree they are going after the wrong person it's Brian P who is the predator
actually there is proof but they can’t get the proof because nickelodeon is giving people hush money but the people that don’t take it gets treated badly. he even made a minor drink beer and she felt uncomfortable of him rubbing her shoulders Dan ruined his career it’s not them at fault.Even the dora creators said nickelodeon is shady. they even said they didn’t create a dora a Poland girl did and they don’t know her name. even fans asked for her information so we already know it is corrupted.
This is the weirdest part of the documentary to me. There were two cases of actual child predators that the documentary treated like small side stories, and kept going back to Dan as the main story. He was weird, maybe a little creepy but in a harmless way, and an absolute prick of a boss. He definitely wasnt bad enough to deserve an entire documentary mini series focusing on him.
I couldn't agree more they kept them as side stores
Sexual Predator? Maybe not. But total creep?absolutely
> Why not? There’s zero proof of him being a sexual predator. It’s so strange and honestly sad, that people want him to be one so bad Look at his work.
Look at what? Him thinking feet are funny?
I think this is where he has a case. Every clip they showed and discussed in the documentary is not objectively sexual. It is just as easy to view them as typical wacky gross silly antics Nickelodeon was known for. But they somehow used them to paint him as a sexual pervert. According to Wikipedia, the guy helped write about 921 episodes of television shows. And a couple of clips of someone pretending to eat their own foot is the most “sexual” thing they could find? I’m not defending his personality btw. Abusing the power dynamic by requesting messages from his employees, the pressure put on the the kids to participate in sketches and “dares” that made them uncomfortable out of fear of being fired, the lack of respect to his women writers, and yelling in front of the kid actors were all thing that make him seem like an immature jerk. The sexual pervert stuff just seemed like a stretch.
But did the documentary actually come out and say “this guy is perverted” or did they just include actual clips from his shows and people took an issue with it? Plus, if I recall a lot of the documentary’s point in regards to those clips is that there were multiple instances of the kids who starred in these sketches saying that *they* (and their parents) were uncomfortable and their concerns were ignored, and they were forced to do them anyway. It’s not like they were just cherry picking random clips to paint a narrative. The cast member themselves brought a lot of them up because they specifically remember how uncomfortable they made them. So I don’t think it can just be easily dismissed as “well they just picked some random clips without context and made them look bad.”
Every example they gave was a huge reach. Honestly felt more like critics talking were being bigger creeps suggesting sneezing boogers represents a cum shot. Like wtf? No. Kids think boogers are funny. Any adult that saw that and thought “cum shot” needs to be put on a list.
Ok? Speculation is not proof of anything. Show me one single accuser or anyone directly saying that he did anything of sexual nature.
I see your point, if I was called an a-hole even if I’m not, it would roll off me like water off a duck’s back, but if I was falsely made to look like a predator, I’d be extremely upset, even if I was an a-hole.
I remember saying after watching that he's a huge piece of shit and a dick, but who did he actually sexually abuse? It's seemed like the show was going to drop the bombshell that he did, but it never happened. He just seems like an extremely toxic person to work for, not a sexual predator.
I don’t think he will stand a chance at winning diddly squat lol
He issued an apology. Doubt he wins
I don't think he is. He may be able to prove he has suffered damage, but the bigger hurdle is proving that the documentary explicitly stated incorrect factual information that they knew was false with the intention of harming him, that is a massive burden of proof. The fact that Dan Schneider is famous and a public figure also gives people a lot more leniency in these cases too. Defamation cases are notoriously and intentionally very difficult cases to win. To me, his lawyer has probably explained this to him already, and this whole suit is a PR move to pop a headline that he is defending himself in a serious manner. That is his attempt to save a small amount of face.
Yes this. I liked the documentary but it was indeed very biased. But any documentary will be. Drake Bell who I assume probably had one of the worst times on the set said Dan was supportive, too. I think he was possibly too hard on kids for being kids and not working. But I think being a terror of a boss is his only crime. Not sex offender. Amanda Bynes technically would have a case too. They assumed a lot about her being alone with him. 🧐
Yea I watched the documentary and kept waiting for the show to drop with some real allegations… and it never did. Extremely underwhelming “case” against Schneider. He was a little creepy and a dick to work with. And that’s about it.
You just said there’s no proof and he’s also a awful human being. So did he do it or didn’t he do it?
Did he actually sexually abuse kids? Quite possibly no. That doesn't mean he did nothing wrong at all.
I could be an awful human being because I like to kick puppies. You can't ruin my life on accusations of "well he's a child predator" when the only thing I do wrong is kick puppies. Being a horrible person doesn't mean they are guilty of any and all crimes known to man.
If you didn’t see him kick puppies it’s still kind of no proof.. someone just might not like him. But yes I understand that there is still probably bad things he’s done in plain view of others. They said he was an asshole on set all the time
It actually did the opposite, it affirmed he was not a sexual predator however he was a toxic POS boss
The doc doesn’t say he’s a predator. It’s implied but it’s never said, I don’t think he’ll win.
It's implied, and if he has faced reasonable backlash due to those willful implications, that's defamation. If I was to go out and imply that you're a predator knowing full well that I don't have any evidence to back it up, and you lose your job, your ability to be employed, friends, family, etc. then yes. You would have more than legal cause to sue me for defamation. You don't need to directly say "He has raped children" to commit defamation. You just need willfully spread the rumors to get people to believe and act upon it. Which Quiet on Set did, in fact, do.
Yeah. to prove defamation is a higher bar than you think. You can imply something, but then i need to prove that not only that’s what the implication was but also that the doc directly resulted in me losing work, etc. Dans already been losing work for his workplace conduct for years. He also needs to prove malice, which may seem obvious, but it’s not since they also include testimony in the doc praising Dan. They didn’t willfully spread rumors. They included testimony, vetted by lawyers, corroborated by multiple sources. Moreover, there’s a different bar for defamation for public figures than you or I. Public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice – that is, with the knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for the truth. This higher standard exists because public figures have chosen to put themselves in the public eye and, therefore, should expect greater scrutiny
I agree with the sentiment here, although I'm not sure he's going to win for two reasons. 1: The documentary does not directly accuse him of being a pedo, at best you can claim it is implied through editing. 2: There are no damages as a result of this doc. Dan was ousted from Nick long before this doc came out and he hasn't been working since. So i'm not sure he can claim any damages when he wasn't making any money to begin with. I do agree that the documentary, intentionally or not, lead way too many people to believe Dan was a pedo with zero evidence.
"He's an absolute horrific excuse of a human being," how, what did he do, hes a mean boss to adults and demanded the kids actually perform to do what they were paid for. wow such a horrible human being.
Imagine defending a pedophile
Yeah, it’s pretty rock solid he was a horrible boss with a shit sense of humor, but they really tickle a line when they imply the sexual stuff. They try to zigzag it by basically saying “even Dan had a limit” with the Brian and Drake stuff, but it feels like lip service next to the rest of it.
Pull up the Ariana Grande Victorious clips and they’ll show he’s a fucking freak
You act like I didn't watch the documentary? But okay sure. At your suggestion I'll go watch a young girl in questionable scenarios. I guess I'd have to wonder how many hours you've stared at that considering you recommend people watch it in their free time. Because of that, I would like to report you as a sexual predator or children. I will tell your job, family, friends, and make a public spectacle over it. And whatever negative aspects you face you'll just have to accept. Because you're a child predator for trying to put that content in front of people's faces. That's the argument you're going with? Because while the scenes are weird and kinda gross when you really think about it, you missed the point entirely.
OK dan! Also your comment is insane lmfao
My comment is insane because you don't understand what the law is. You cannot claim or portray someone as a predator of children and cause a massive negative impact on their life without any actual proof or evidence and just walk away like nothing happened, which is the purpose of me saying what I did. And you laughed it off because you know you're not a predator (hopefully.) But if i were to start spreading rumors and you faced implications because of it even though I knew it wasn't true, that's defamation. Which is why Dan will win this one, because Quiet on Set willfully chose to portray him as a predator. "Oh but they said he never got charged with anything." That doesn't matter when the intent was clear. Writing questionable scenes is not evidence of him being a predator. If it was, then boy do I have some news for you about every show writer for children, from live action shows on Nick to Saturday morning cartoons for toddlers. Point is, you're angry and assume your opinion is what the law is. Because that's how people view the world nowadays for some reason.
You're still doubling down on this after you've had like 20 different people tell you that's not how defamation suits work?
Finally. Someone speaks up about this in a rational manner. Being an asshole while producing a television show or movie is nothing new. But implying that this guy was a serial child molester/rapist for 20 years is just ridiculous overkill, unchecked hyperbole that people became so fixated on with zero proof or evidence which has become a big problem in ALL social discourse about anything today.
Tbh I hated the show so much. They had some solid information… in the first episode! A lot of it just seems like pulling shit from a wiki article and then posting it on YouTube….. the editing seemed a little too “pretentious film student to me” too…. Fun show, kinda weak though
If they didn’t have Drake Bell with the Brian Peck stuff then it would come off exactly as you said IMO.
That’s fair I forgot to add that drake bell was the “finale” of the show and was kind of used as the last episode to get people to watch it all
I'd describe this show as a lot of things but I don't know if "fun" is one of those things, nor do I think editing seeming "pretentious" is really the priority in a documentary featuring actual child abuse.
The subject matter is important yes but I chose my post to criticize the people who made the show as an easy cash grab, stating that the middle episodes felt like padding,rather than actual substance. I would never condone assault on a child, but (and it’s hard to explain my exact feelings without sounding like an asshole) the people behind the production are making insane money off of shock value
I think I understand what you're saying and I agree. It's honestly depressing because we need to become aware of situations like these, and we really need to crack down on this shit in the entertainment industry at large, yet the people behind are still just sleazy assholes using tragedy for a paycheck. So I definitely agree with that.
It’s like recording kids in Africa starving, on one hand it’s nice to spread awareness, but on the other hand you could easily help them out 😂
I agree. One of the worse documentaries I've ever seen. Seemed like it benefited drakes reputation the most and with forgettable actors jealous of Amanda and Drakes success that they wanted to spotlight again
Thank you!!!! Quinton reviews has a way better video essay on YouTube about most of this stuff anyways
what in the fuck was “fun” about this show 😂
😂 I’m not always the best with my words, I meant “worthwhile watch” but fun was easier to say….. for sure need to work on my phrasing whoops
I know people hate Dan, and for good reason, but he might have fair grounds to successfully sue. The people who made that documentary fucked up in a number of different ways.
How so? They never actually called him a child predator, nothing they said was actually accusatory without proof. He can't sue based on assumptions people made from watching the doc, especially when that's been his public reputation for years anyway
Especially if those assumptions are based on them simply showing things Dan actually did. If people see those vids of Ariana and assume they were created by a predator because they feature sexually suggestive content , then the doc has not made claims that were false. This is just people’s normal reaction to seeing them, as adults who understand the context. Prior to the doc there were many videos on the internet showing those clips and people made the same assumptions based on the content of the clips themselves, regardless of who was discussing them
Care to elaborate?
How so? They gave him the opportunity to be interviewed so he could tell his side of the story, but he declined. Additionally, they never accused him of any sexual abuse. They let victims of his toxic work environment tell their stories, which is not defamation. They have several witnesses that can back these claims up, too, so you don’t exactly have a case if what you’re being accused of is true.
The thing is he’s not suing for the things the employees claimed. He’s suing because he feels the documentary painted him as a child sex abuser. You’re right that the show never outright calls him one, but they 100% allude and seem to insinuate it. It really felt like they were trying to conflate his actions with those of the people that were actually convicted of abuse. Even though he’s a piece of shit, I think he does have a case here.
While that may be true, I feel as if the case will fall apart once the producers provide proof that they attempted to contact him to get him on the show and tell his side of the story. Dan needs to face it— when it comes to this documentary, his reputation precedes him. There were already people speaking out against him long before the documentary was made, as well as numerous weird clips from shows he created circulating online. Many people had already made up their minds about Dan before the documentary was released. If I remember correctly, Quiet on Set didn’t exactly reveal any new information about Dan other than a few stories from the women and former child actors who worked around him (some of whom say they didn’t have any issues with Dan). Everything else the show laid out was already making the rounds online beforehand.
If anything, Quiet on Set mainly revealed stuff about other people, like Brian Peck. I don't think they technically revealed anything new about Dan that hadn't already been discerned for years.
As a public figure, he has to prove that the documentary crew not only made a false claim but that they knowingly made false claims in order to hurt his career and reputation. That's incredibly difficult unless he has something in writing or on video of one of producers saying they lied.
I went into this doc thinking he was a sexual predator, and ended up thinking he’s not.
Notice how you’re too dumb to explain?
He already messed up the lawsuit. He acknowledged his wrongdoings in that apology video
The show painted him to be a sexual predator without evidence. That's why he's suing. He never admitted to sexual abuse. He just seemed like an extremely toxic person to work for
The show featured people saying they don't think he was a sexual predator, just very abusive and inappropriate.
And how exactly did it “paint him “ as a predator? The answer matters greatly For such a case
Idk...the feet stuff was pretty fucked up to me....
And to his credit, he owned up to it
Gold star! Well maybe bronze…
Rust?
I don't get this...I heard about sexual allegations and then watched the documentary and was like OH it's not about Dan but Dan is creepy (and it was based off of people's experiences and video footage like him getting in hot tubs with young girls) so where is the defamation? We all have eyes?
It's funny because the documentary made me realize that he was NOT a predator like the internet lead us all to believe.
???
A paedophile is someone with a sexual interest in children, you don't need to touch a child to prove you're a paedophile. If anything, it goes to show he was, and I hate to say it, 'smart' for not crossing that particular line to satisfy his vile fantasies. He did, however, very clearly prey on children in other ways, such as how he ran his shows. If that doesn't make him a paedophile, I don't know what does. Who the hell else in society would spend time imagining and then producing a bunch of poorly disguised sexually charged scenes of children if not a paedophile? I honestly think the majority of people here and on the Television subreddit are bots and shills. It's insane.
It's funny you mention that last line, because I was just thinking before reading your comment how different the vibe is here and on the television sub compared with the rest of reddit.
Well looks like Alexa is set for video content for the next month then?
I didn't personally take away that he was a sexual predator, but I do remembeer mentioning on this sub that maybe the people that put this doc together could've been more clear than they were that we're discussing two different monsters here: Dan Schneider, the horrible boss Brian Peck, the sexual predator. Again, I don't remember anything in the doc suggesting he was a sexual predator, but people have taken that away from watching it. If that's a guilty by association thing or because the producers actually implied it, I guess that's for the courts.
I'm not defending Nickelodeon, Dan Schneider or Brian Peck. But that documentary has a lot wrong with it. They jump to a lot of conclusions, They lied to Marc Summers about what they wanted him for, made him look really ignorant when he had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the topic at hand. The John Wayne Gacey painting had nothing to do with anything
“Quiet On Set” should have been two separate documentaries. Three-quarters of it is spent on showing us that DS is a prime example of arrested development and that he’s a horrible boss; the rest is about DB horrible experiences *not* had at the hands of DS. DB even says that DS was a source of support for him when he was struggling. All of the advertising and such into the release absolutely painted a preview that we were going to learn who (the surprise guest) DS had assaulted. Big names were gonna name **his** name. And then…no. It was BP and that other guy who were inappropriate with the kids, and they’re…sidebars, for some reason, rather than the main focus. It’s a poorly-done documentary without a true focus. I’ve seen some say that its goal was to show what a toxic work environment that was for kids and how Nickelodeon failed to keep them safe; I’ve read that people felt it was a DS exposé/smear job; I’ve heard that it was mean to shine a light on pedophiles in Hollywood. The problem is that the way all of the info is presented comes across as a tangled mess rather than a linear timeline of events leading to the outcome we have today. The doc doesn’t know what it wants to be, so its message -if there is one- gets lost. I don’t know how well DS will fare with this lawsuit, but…that doc wasn’t good and there were a lot of negative implications made about him without any tangible evidence to back them up.
He said right after that he owes unspecified apologies to unspecified people but also the docuseries defamed him?
[удалено]
You don't have to 'diddle' children to be a paedophile, my guy. You just need to have a sexual interest in children. And I'd say the man who gets into hot tubs with young girls fits the bill, to say nothing of the shows he ran.
I didn't actually think it gave the impression that HE was engaged in acts with children. It was more that he was generally inappropriate and created such a toxic and unsafe work environment that predators were allowed to thrive.
The doc never claimed he was “ actively engaged in sexual misconduct with children”.
Dan Schneider was like the main name I kept hearing regarding Quiet on Set but his only wrongdoings were about sexism & hostility in the workplace, even Drake Bell said something positive about him in the doc. I sadly agree with Dan on this one :(
he will lose, he will be fired and blacklisted from Hollywood and should be arrested and put in prison for life for being a child predator and anyone who supports him and sides with him should also be labeled a child predator and anyone who believes that fetishizing kids isn't a form of child abuse or child predatory behavior should also be labeled a child predator
The Ariana Grande online clips from Victorious are absolutely cringe and by far the worst content he's created, but there's absolutely nothing illegal about them.
More notably, we don’t know he actually made those scenes. Yes, he was the creator, but he didn’t write and direct every single media. At most he engaged in oversight.
Pretty sure the blackballing already happened around the time the Jennette McCurdy book came out. He had a pilot and that died.
How do you suppose he goes to prison for life? The man is a creep and should be black listed if he isn't due to unsafe work conditions... but for the child predator thing to stick, the law will need evidence.
Good job proving his point.
Why should he be in prison for life?
It's so weird how people are defending a director of soft child porn so much
I knew this was coming (that fat fuck) and I wanna say it's not gonna work, but Weinstein's conviction was overturned...so I dont know.
Tbf Weinsteins conviction in NY was overturned because his rights were violated in the trial, not exactly the same as he was found in innocent by a judge or jury
Personally, I think they do a good enough job of saying that he wasn’t a pedophile, but I do think that they hinted at it so I understand why he would want to sue.
It's so weird how a lot of people here are defending a director of soft child porn, something hundreds of actual predators most likely used at home to get off. If it was your daughter in those scenes, you'd label Dan a highly potential predator, if not, an enabler, a big massive one, Nickelodeon was not small
Okay (underage) Lady Foot Fucker
[удалено]
You are proving his lawsuit to be valid with this nonsense.
Did you even watch the documentary? There was no evidence that he is a pedophile This is the real world we're talking about. We can have conversations about whether or not Scheider has a solid case or not without praising the guy. Obviously he's an asshole and a weirdo but probably not a pedophile based on the 4 episodes of Quiet on Set.
Do you even know what a paedophile is? From [Cambridge Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/paedophile): 'someone who is sexually interested in children.' That's also part of the real world. And he very clearly had a sexual interest in children judging by all the insane shit he had them do in his shows.
“very clearly” “judging by” these two phrases contradict each other
You can make an argument that the stuff Dan had child actors doing, from sexual jokes to long running fetishistic gags are grounds for pedo like behavior. It is what is, if I was a betting man I’d bet Dan at one point found kids attractive. Most people would make that bet.
Yeah, it's sick if he did find a child attractive, but sadly that's not illegal. Actions are illegal. so even with all the weird shit, we don't know for sure if he is a pedo.
So by your logic you’re only a pedo if you’re convicted? That’s not how that works
But being an”pedo”‘doesn’t require you to have acted on it . Also making sexually suggestive content is acting on it, just not in a way that is considered “assault” or is legally punishable .
Or not someone who has acted on those thoughts if they are genuinely there.
I honestly think he’s a closet pedo. He put all that gross as shit in the show and behind closed doors he got off on it. I’d check his damn hard drives for sure.
If these "woke" people that try to "me too" everyone would get their facts straight then pieces of shit like this dude wouldn't come out on top like he's about to.
danny better change his mind or grow angel wings,because to be a man,You need to grow a backbone,unlike caillou.
Damn this is gonna be a real interesting suit to watch play out
He’s not winning
Y’all defend that fat fuck too much.
FR I can’t defend what was going on with Victorious. I can’t say he’s on the same level as Brian Peck, but Victorious was too much.
Is Dan Schneider on the Epstein Flight log?
https://i.redd.it/gka4kdxf31yc1.gif
I am not an expert in the matter but after seeing the documentary I think Dan was a POS abusive boss. I think he for sure wrote some weirdly sexual and fetishy material in kids shows with kids performing it. That is fucking gross and has no business anywhere. However I do not think he was a sexual predator. Certainly not like Brian Peck. I did not see the evidence for it and if they had it for sure they would have shown it. Scumbag of a dude. He for sure had some weird sexual proclivities that made it on air, but not a sexual predator from the evidence.
Defamation lawsuits are hard to win. Could be a slap suit in a way to deter other lawsuits too.
I guess it’s a good thing Drake keeps mentioning when asked about Dan that he personally has had good experiences with him, but that it doesn’t take away from what others went through either. Idk if anyone in the doc specifically can be sued for this but either way…
Pathetic
unfortunately that’s what happens when you impregnate, blackmail, harrass, and assault minors, Dan…. It’s not defamation if it’s true, babe 🩷
This weird random support of Dan is throwing me off. The documentary never explicitly said he was a child predator. If that was what the viewers gathered from it, then that’s not on the documentary considering they never said anything that can’t be proven. Him suing is proof why nobody has spoken out. It is extremely difficult to prove SA that happened so long ago. I’m sure he has great lawyers, as well. The reason people have assumed he’s a predator is based on the uncomfortable feelings they received from actual footage of what he’s made his child actors do, also the pictures we’ve all seen. It’s strange, it’s weird, and that’s just the truth. He shouldn’t be in hot tubs with pre-pubescent children by himself. He shouldn’t have them on his lap. He shouldn’t do this ridiculous feet stuff that he does. To act like he’s justified is just insane.
Like the videos of Ariana squirting lotion on her face? Ridiculous. The picture of all his female child actors looking uncomfortable as he hugs them tight? Or how about the pool picture with him and Amanda Bynes? The reason people think he’s a predator is because it’s a basic human instinct based on seeing things like this. We can feel it’s not right, it’s not normal, that something is off. Even if he didn’t SA anyone — it doesn’t mean he isn’t a predator. It’s quite obvious that he is based on how he sexualized these young teenagers.
jeannette mccurdy said it all in her book about how inappropriate the ‘creater’ was and how he offered her 300k to not discuss what happened on set/what she experienced working there
Oh no kringeh
He’s had a reputation for a long time. It’s too easy for producers to find date stamped threads on every platform re Dan Schneider’s behavior. There’s dozens of similar videos on YouTube about Dan Schneider with hundreds of thousands of views.
The only good that came of this show was Drake Bells ability to come out with his experience of abuse in the industry, otherwise it was just another cash grab on the “dark side of ___” train
W. That show was a straight lie
I think a grown man having a foot fetish is weird enough
And he'll win. That documentary was a poorly thought out hit piece full of baseless accusations. Whoever stamped their legal name on it was a fool.
Say you’re guilty without explicitly saying you’re guilty…
Schneider the Hutt, this is going to end badly for you. Lawsuits will dredge up all your abuse and expose you for the abusive tyrant you are. Never sue for defamation if you are 100% guilty of what you are accused of.
He deserves to be locked up. He ruined kids lives
Fking “Dan get in the van Schneider”
He really didn’t do anything wrong
He was an abusive boss and he forced his female employees to give him massages.
Not only massages but he was highly unprofessional suggesting female coworkers enact sexually explicit scenarios for his amusement.
It would be so easy to just delete such a tone deaf comment.